Sural Sinir İletim Çalışmalarında Yakın Sinir Yönteminin Özgüllüğü

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the false positive rate of sural nerve conduction studies for healthy subjects. Materials and Methods: We performed sural nerve conduction studies for 23 healthy subjects using both nerve-nerve technique and surface recording. Results: We found three abnormal results in the sural nerve-nerve technique. However, all those patients had normal results in the surface recording. Conclusion: The surface recording is recommended for suspicious cases in order to approve the abnormal results in the near-nerve technique.

Keywords

• Polyneuropathy
• Sural Nerve
• Near-nerve Technique
• Surface Electrode Recording
• Nerve Conduction Study

References

1. 1. Donofrio PD, Albers JW. AAEM minimonograph #34: polyneuropathy: classification by nerve conduction studies and electromyography. Muscle Nerve. 1990;13:889-903 2. Falck B, Stålberg E, Bischoff C. Sensory nerve conduction studies with surface electrodes. Methods Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;5:1-20.
2. 3. Behse F, Buchthal F. Normal sensory conduction in the nerves of the leg in man. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1971;34:404-414.
3. 4. Buchthal F, Rosenfalck A. Sensory potentials in polyneuropathy. Brain. 1971;94:241-262.
4. 5. Horowitz SH, Krarup C. Conduction studies of the normal sural nerve. Muscle Nerve. 1992;15:374-383.
5. 6. Kural MA, Pugdahl K, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, et al. Near-Nerve Needle Technique Versus Surface Electrode Recordings in Electrodiagnosis of Diabetic Polyneuropathy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;33:346-349.
6. 7. Kural MA, Karlsson P, Pugdahl K, et al. Diagnostic utility of distal nerve conduction studies and sural near-nerve needle recording in polyneuropathy. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:1590-1595.
7. 8. Rosenfalck P, Rosenfalck A. Electromyography-sensory and motor conduction. Findings in normal subjects. Laboratory of Clinical Neurophysiology. Copenhagen (1975).
8. 9. Tankisi H, Pugdahl K, Otto M, et al. Misinterpretation of sural nerve conduction studies due to anatomical variation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125:2115-2121