Download PDF
Klinische Neurophysiologie 2017; 48(03): 124-131
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-115103
Originalia
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Überblick über die Entwicklung und den aktuellen Stand der Analyse von Potenzialen motorischer Einheiten (quantitatives EMG)

Overview of the Development and the Current State of the Analysis of Motor Unit Potentials (Quantitative EMG)
Christian Bischoff
1   Neurologische Gemeinschaftspraxis am Marienplatz, München
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 August 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Der Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklung der quantitativen Analyse der Potenziale motorischer Einheiten von den Anfängen bis zu den modernen Multi-MUP Analysesystemen. Besonderer Wert wird dabei auf die Darstellung der den Methoden immanenten Problemen und Fehlerquellen gelegt. Die Schwierigkeiten der Mittelwertbildung der deskriptiven Potenzialanalyse und der Lösungsansatz der Ausreißer-Methode bei der Beurteilung neuromuskulärer Prozesse werden diskutiert.

Abstract

The article summarizes the development of the quantitative MUP analysis from its early beginnings to recent methods of multi-MUP analysis. The pitfalls and limitations of different strategies of quantitative EMG are discussed. The problems of using mean values of MUPs in quantitative EMG – a method used often previously – are illustrated, and the approach to solving them by the outlier method is discussed.

Schlüsselwörter

EMG - quantitatives EMG - Potenziale motorischer Einheiten

Key words

quantitative EMG - motor unit action potential analysis - multi-MUP analysis - outliers
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Farkas C, Hamilton-Wright A, Parsaei H. et al. A review of clinical quantitative electromyography. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2010; 38: 467-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Buchthal F, Pinelli P. Analysis of motor unit action potentials as a diagnostic aid in neuromuscular disorders. Acta Med Scand 1952; 266: 315-327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Buchthal F. Electromyography in diagnosis of central and peripheral lesions of the nervous system]. Rev Neurol (Paris) 1950; 83: 12-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Buchthal F. Studies on muscular action potentials in the normal and diseased muscle. Dtsch Z Nervenheilkd 1955; 173: 448-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Buchthal F. An introduction to electromyography. Scandinavian Univ. Press; Copenhagen: 1957
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Buchthal F, Guld P, Rosenfalck P. Action potential parameters in normal human muscles and their dependence on physical variabilities. Acta Physiol Scand 1954; 32: 200-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Czekajewski J, Ekstedt J, Stalberg E. Oscilloscop in recoding of muscle fiber action potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 1969; 27: 536-539
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Andreassen S. Methods for computer-aided measurments of motor unit parameters. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1987; Suppl. 39: 13-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bergmans J. Computer assisted on-line measurement of motor unit parameters. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1971; 11: 161-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee RG, White DG. Computer analysis of motor unit action potentials in routine electromyography. In: Desmedt J. (ed) New Developments in Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 469545-461 Karger; Verlag, Basel: 1973
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Stålberg E, Antoni L. Computer aided EMG analysis. In: Desmedt J. (ed) Progress in Clinical Neurophysiology. Karger; Verlag Basel: 1983
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Stålberg E, Stålberg S. The use of small computers in the EMG lab. In: Desmedt J. (ed) Computer aided Electromyography and exper systems. 1-32 Elsevier; Amsterdam: 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Falck B, Stålberg E, Stålberg S. et al. Multi-MUP EMG analysis in clinical routine. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 1996; 30 (Suppl. 03) 55-70 Review
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nandedkar SD, Barkhaus PE, Charles A. Multi-motor unit action potential analysis (MMA). Muscle Nerve. 1995; 18: 1155-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stålberg E, Falck B, Sonoo M. et al. Multi-MUP EMG analysis – a 2 year experience in daily clinical work. Electroenceph Clin Nerophysiol 1995; 97: 145-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McGill KC, Lateva ZC, Johanson ME. Validation of a computer-aided EMG decomposition method. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2004; 7: 4744-4747
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 LeFever RS, Deluca CJ. Automatic decomposition of the clinical electromyogramm. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1985; 32: 470-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McGill KC, Dorfman L. Automatic EMG decomposition of the clinical electromyogram. Electroencephal Clin Neuropysiol 1985; 61: 453-461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fugelsang-Fredriksen A, Scheel U, Buchthal F. Diagnostic yield of analysis of pattern of electrical activity of muscle and of individual motor unit potentials in neurogenic involvement. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1977; 40: 544-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nandedkar SD, Barkhaus PE, Sanders D. et al. Analysis of the amplitude and area of the concentric needle EMG motor unit action potential. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 1988; 69: 561-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bischoff C, Stålberg E, Falck B. et al. Reference values of motor unit action potentials obtained with multi-MUAP analysis. Muscle Nerve. 1994; 17: 842-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stewart C, Nandekar J, Massey J. et al. Evaluation of automatic methods of measuring features of motor unit action potentials. Muscle Nerve 1989; 12: 141-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sonoo M, Stålberg E. The ability of MUP parameters to discriminate between normal and neurogenic MUPs in concentric EMG: analysis of the MUP “thickness” and the proposal of “size index”. Electroencephal Clin Neuropyhsiol 1993; 89: 291-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stålberg E, Troentelj JV. Single fiber electromyography – studies in healthy in diseased muscles. Raven Press; New York: 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Stålberg E, Bischoff C, Falck B. Outliers, a way to detect abnormality in quantitative EMG. Muscle Nerve. 1994; 17: 392-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bischoff C, Schulte-Mattler W. Das EMG Buch. Thieme Verlag; Stuttgart: 1985
    Google Scholar