Arango-Aguilar J, Fraire-Martínez MI, Sepúlveda-Vildósola AC

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 110-113
PDF size: 191.38 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Studies in adults show that with a 3 or 4 cm distance between active and reference electrodes, maximum amplitude and latency values of sensitive nerve action potentials are obtained. The purpose of this study was to identify, in healthy children, the interelectrode distances at which the amplitude and peak latency do not differ signifi - cantly from those obtained with the intereletrode distance at which the maximum values are obtained.
Methods: Four reference electrodes were placed at 1, 2, 3 and 4 cm distance from the active electrode. The electrode signal was recorded simultaneously with a physical jumper between the four channels. A sample of 66 median nerves was analyzed in children aged 5 to 9 years. Amplitude and latency maximum values were obtained with an interelectrode distance of 4 cm. Values obtained with 4 cm were compared against those obtained with 1, 2 and 3 cm interelectrode distances.
Results: Amplitude values did not show significant difference with 3 and 4 cm interelectrode distances (p = 0.216). With regard to latency, the values did not indicate significant difference with the 4 and 3 cm interelectrode distances (p = 0.266).
Conclusions: The amplitude increase resulting from interelectrode distance augmentation is not influenced by the peripheral nerve growth process in children. The optimal distance for the record of the nerve potential actions was similar to that seen in adults.

REFERENCES

1. Varghese G, Rogoff JB. Infl uence of inter-electrode distance on antidromic sensory potentials. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983;23(4):297-301.

2. Dumitru D, Walsh NE. Practical instrumentation and common sources of error. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;67(2):55-65.

3. Wee AS, Ashley RA. Effect of interelectrode recording distance on morphology of the antidromic sensory action potentials at the fi nger. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1990;30(2):93-6.

4. Hasegawa O, Iino M, Matsumoto S, Yoshii T, Shimamura M. Effects of interelectrode separation in sensory nerve conduction studies. No To Shinkei. 1999;51(8):699-702.

5. Van Evanoff Jr, MD, Ralph M. Buschbacher: Optimal interelectrode distance in sensory and mixed compound nerve action potentials: 3-versus 4-centimeter bar electrodes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(3):405-8.

6. Plastaras CT, Marciniak CM, Sipple DP, D’Amore KG, Garvan C, Zaman SM. Effect of interelectrode distance on sural nerve action potential parameters. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87(3):183-8.

7. Toghi H, Tsukagoshi H, Toyokura Y. Quantitative changes in sural nerve with age in normal sural nerve. Acta Neurophat (Berl). 1977;38:213-20.

8. García-García A, Calleja-Fernández J. Neurofi siología del desarrollo y la maduración del sistema nervioso. Rev Neurol. 2004;38(1):79-83.

9. Dumitru D, Amato A, Machiel Z. Electrodiagnostic medicine. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus; 2002. p. 182-3.

10. Eduardo E, Burke D. The optimal recording electrode confi guration for compound sensory action potentials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988;51:684-7.