Evaluation of proximal and distal motor nerve conduction using the electrical root stimulation technique in the femoral and obturator nerves

Cengiz Ünsal; Erkut Turan; Ömer G. Dilek; Seyyid S. Sabanci; Murat Sarierler

doi:10.3415/VCOT-16-02-0021

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30(02): 111-117
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-16-02-0021

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of proximal and distal motor nerve conduction using the electrical root stimulation technique in the femoral and obturator nerves

Authors

Cengiz Ünsal

¹Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Physiology, Işikli-Aydin, Turkey
Erkut Turan

²Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Işikli-Aydin, Turkey
Ömer G. Dilek

³Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Istiklal Campus, Ortulu-Burdur, Turkey
Seyyid S. Sabanci

⁴Kirikkale University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Anatomy, Yahşihan, Kirikkale, Turkey
Murat Sarierler

⁵Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Surgery, Işikli-Aydin, Turkey

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the adaptability of the electrical root stimulation technique by achieving normative data from the obturator and femoral nerves of healthy dogs.

Methods: For this purpose, two stimulations and recordings were performed on both the obturator and femoral nerves in 40 dogs (22 males and 18 females). Electrical root stimulation was applied via monopolar needle electrodes between the sixth to seventh and fifth to sixth lumbar inter arcuate spaces to the obturator and femoral nerves, respectively. Muscle waves were recorded from the gracilis and sartorius muscles of the left and right pelvic limb.

Results: The proximal motor nerve conduction velocity was 60.89 ± 3.93 m/s and 59.87 ± 4.83 m/s in the obturator and femoral nerves, respectively.

Clinical significance: Our results showed that electrical root stimulation could be a useful method to test the integrity of the roots of obturator and femoral nerves and their proximal parts.

Keywords

Dog - electrical root stimulation - nerve conduction velocity - electroneuromyography

Full Text

References

References
1 Evans HE.. Spinal nerves. In: Evans HE., De Lahunta A.. editors. Miller’s Anatomy of the Dog St. Louis, MI: W.B.Saunders Company; 1993: 572-625.
2 Lorenz MD., Coates JR., Kent M.. Paresis of one limb. In: Lorenz MD., Coates JR., Kent M.. editors. Handbook of Veterinary Neurology. 5^th ed Missouri: Elsevier Saunders; 2011: 93-108.
3 Faissler D., Jurina K., Cauzinille L.. et al. Peripheral nervous system and musculature. In: Jaggy A.. editor. Small Animal Neurology an Illustrated Text Hannover: Schlütersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co; 2010: 271-329.
4 Harcourt-Brown TR., Granger N., Smith PM.. et al. Use of a lateral surgical approach to the femoral nerve in the management of two primary femoral nerve sheath tumours. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 229-232.
5 Rossmeisl JH., Rohleder JJ., Hancock R.. et al. Computed tomographic features of suspected traumatic injury to the iliopsoas and pelvic limb musculature of a dog. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2004; 45: 388-392.
6 Stepnik MW., Olby N., Thompson RR.. et al. Femoral neuropathy in a dog with iliopsoas muscle injury. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 186-190.
7 Montoliu P., Pumarola M., Zamora A.. et al. Femoral mononeuropathy caused by a malignant sarcoma: Two case reports. Vet J 2008; 178: 298-301.
8 Denny H., Butterworth SJ.. A Guide to Canine and Feline Orthopaedic Surgery. 4^th ed. Iowa: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2000
9 Tong K., Hayashi K.. Obturator nerve impingement as a severe late complication of bilateral triple pelvic osteotomy. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 67-70.
10 Vanhaesebrouck AE., Maes S., Van Soens I.. et al. Bilateral obturator neuropathy caused by an intrapelvic fibrosarcoma with myofibroblastic features in a dog. J Small Anim Pract 2012; 53: 423-427.
11 Srenk P., Flühmann G., Muhle A.. et al. Electrodiagnostics. In: Jaggy A.. editor. Small Animal Neurology an Illustrated Text Hannover: Schlütersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co; 2010: 153-168.
12 Kimura J.. Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle: Principles and Practice. 4^th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013: 1177.
13 Ertekin C., Nejat RS., Sirin H.. et al. Comparison of magnetic coil and needle-electrical stimulation in diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Muscle Nerve 1994; 17: 685-686.
14 Ertekin C., Nejat RS., Sirin H.. et al. Comparison of magnetic coil stimulation and needle electrical stimulation in the diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 1994; 96: 124-129.
15 Evans BA., Daube JR., Litchy WJ.. A comparison of magnetic and electrical stimulation of spinal nerves. Muscle Nerve 1990; 13: 414-420.
16 Fisher MA.. Electrophysiology of radiculopathies. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113: 317-335.
17 Macdonell RA., Cros D., Shahani BT.. Lumbosacral nerve root stimulation comparing electrical with surface magnetic coil techniques. Muscle Nerve 1992; 15: 885-890.
18 Menkes DL., Hood DC., Ballesteros RA.. et al. Root stimulation improves the detection of acquired demyelinating polyneuropathies. Muscle Nerve 1998; 21: 298-308.
19 Tataroglu C., Bicerol B., Kiylioglu N.. et al. Proximal femoral conductions in patients with lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2007; 109: 654-660.
20 Uludag B., Ertekin C., Turman AB.. et al. Proximal and distal motor nerve conduction in obturator and femoral nerves. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2000; 81: 1166-1170.
21 Zileli B., Ertekin C., Zileli M.. et al. Diagnostic value of electrical stimulation of lumbosacral roots in lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurol Scand 2002; 105: 221-227.
22 Turan E., Unsal C., Oren MU.. et al. Electrical stimulation of lumbar spinal nerve roots in dogs. Vet Res Commun 2014; 38: 229-235.
23 Oh S.. Uncommon nerve conduction studies: techniques and normal values. In: Clinical Electromyography: Nerve Conduction Studies. 2^nd ed. Philadelphia: Williams&Wilkins; 1993: 149-276.
24 Nardin RA., Patel MR., Gudas TF.. et al. Electromyography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of radiculopathy. Muscle Nerve 1999; 22: 151-155.
25 Weiss L., Weiss J., Pobre T.. et al. Nerve conduction studies. In: Weiss L., Silver J., Weiss J.. editors. Easy EMG China: Elsevier Inc; 2004: 17-39.
26 Cuddon PA.. Electrophysiologic assessment of acute polyradiculoneuropathy in dogs: Comparison with Guillain-Barre syndrome in people. J Vet Intern Med 1998; 12: 294-303.
27 Lee DH., Claussen GC., Oh S.. Clinical nerve conduction and needle electromyography studies. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12: 276-287.
28 Steiss JE., Argue CK.. Normal values for radial, peroneal and tibial motor nerve conduction velocities in adult sheep, with comparison to adult dogs. Vet Res Commun 1987; 11: 243-252.
29 Walker TL., Redding RW., Braund KG.. Motor nerve conduction velocity and latency in the dog. Am J Vet Res 1979; 40: 1433-1439.
30 Whalen LR., Spurgeon TL., Carsten RE.. et al. Conduction velocities and reflexes of the proximal and distal parts of the saphenous nerve of the dog. Am J Vet Res 1986; 47: 1063-1070.
31 Jost WH., Ecker KW., Schimrigk K.. Surface versus needle electrodes in determination of motor conduction time to the external anal sphincter. Int J Colorectal Dis 1994; 9: 197-199.