Download PDF
Klinische Neurophysiologie 2019; 50(02): 83-88
DOI: 10.1055/a-0885-7841
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Reproduzierbarkeit der Neurografie – explorative Untersuchung

Reproducibility of Neurography – Exploratory Examination
Helmut Buchner
1   Klinikum Vest, Recklinghausen
2   Neurologische Universitätsklinik, Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum-Langendreer
,
Lars Schönlau
2   Neurologische Universitätsklinik, Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum-Langendreer
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 April 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Für klinische Entscheidungen ist die Sicherheit eines Messergebnisses und seine Variabilität ist sehr bedeutsam. Für die Neurografie liegen nur wenige Untersuchen zur Reproduzierbarkeit – Reliabilität – vor. Die vorliegende exporative Studie hatte die Ziele Schätzwerte für die beste mögliche Re-Test-Reliabilität und Hypothesen für weitere Untersuchungen mit mehr Variablen zu erstellen. Dazu wurden Nerven von 10 Gesunden von einem Untersucher an einem Typ des Neurografiegeräts gemessen.

Die F-Wellen und die motorische Leitgeschwindigkeiten in den Segmenten von Unterschenkel und Unterarm waren mit ca. 5% Abweichungen reproduzierbar. Die sensiblen Leitgeschwindigkeiten waren mit unter 10% Abweichung reproduzierbar.

Die Amplituden der motorischen Aktionspotenziale und der sensiblen Nervenantwortpotenziale haben eine begrenzte Reproduzierbarkeit.

Die Bewertung der Messwerte muss mit deutlicher Zurückhaltung erfolgen. Es ist zu erwarten, dass die Reliabilität bei Vergleichen zwischen Untersuchern deutlich geringer ist.

Abstract

For clinical decisions, the safety of a measurement result and its variability is very significant. For neurography, only a few studies on reproducibility – reliability – are available. The present explorative study aimed to provide estimates for the best possible re-test reliability and hypotheses for further studies with more variables. Nerves of 10 healthy persons were measured by an examiner on one type of neurography device. The F-waves and motor conduction velocities in the segments of the lower leg and forearm were reproducible with approximately 5% deviation. The sensitive conduction velocities were reproducible with less than 10% deviation. The amplitudes of the motor action potentials and the sensitive nerve response potentials had limited reproducibility. The evaluation of the measured values ​​must be carried out with great caution. It is to be expected that the reliability is significantly lower in comparisons between examiners.

Schlüsselworte

Neurografie - Reproduzierbarkeit - Reliabilität

Key words

Neurography - reproducibility - reliability
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Ludin HP. Praktische Elektromyographie. 3. Aufl Stuttgart: Enke; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Aminoff MJ. Aminoff´s electrodiagnosis in clinical Neurology. 6. Ed Elsevier; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Kimura J. Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle. 4. Ed Oxford University Press; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Kimura J. Facts, fallacies, and fancies of nerve conduction studies: twenty-first annual Edward H. Lambert lecture. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20: 777-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bleasel AF, Tuck RR. Variability of repeated nerve conduction studies. Electroenceph clin Neurophysiol 1991; 81: 417-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dyck PJ, Karnes JL, O´Brien PC. et al. The Rochester diabetic neuropathy study: Reassessment of test and criteria for diagnosis and stage severity. Neurology 1992; 42: 1164-1170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Claus D, Mustafa C, Vogel W. et al. Assessment of diabetic neuropathy: Definition of norm and discrimination of abnormal nerve function Muscle Nerve. 1993; 16: 757-768
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kohara N, Kimura J, Kaji R. et al. F-wave latency serves as the most reproducible measure in nerve conduction studies of diabetic polyneuropathy: multicenter analysis in healthy subjects and patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetologica 2000; 43: 915-921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kimura J. Long and short nerve conduction measures: reproducibility for sequential assessment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 2001; 71: 427-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schuhfried O, Angst M, Herceg M. et al. Interexaminer repeatability of antidromic ulnar sensory nerve conduction velocity measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 2047-2050
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kong X, Lesser EA, Thomas J. et al. Repeatability of nerve conduction measurements using automation. J clinical Monitoring and Computing 2006; 20: 405-410
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pinheiro DS, Manzano GM, Nóbrega JA. Reproducibility in nerve conduction studies and f-wave analysis. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119: 2070-2073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kong X, Lesser EA, Gozani SN. Repeatability of nerve conduction measuraments derives entirely by computer methods. BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2009; 8: 33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ward RE, Boudreau RM, Vinik AI. et al. Reproducibility of peroneal motor nerve conduction measures in older adults. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124: 603-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Van den Bergh PYK, Hadden PDM, Bouche P. et al. European Federation of neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on management of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: Report of a joint task force of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and the Peripheral Nerve Society – First Revision European. J Neurol 2010; 17: 356-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bucher H, Kaminski RU. Strategien neurophysiologischer Untersuchungen. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Elecromyography and Neuromuscular Disorders: Clinical-Electrophysiologic Correlations. 3. Ed. London: Elsevier; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Stöhr M, Pfister R. Klinische Elektromyographie und Neurographie – Lehrbuch und Atlas. 6. Aufl. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Bischoff Ch, Dengler R. (Hrsg.) EMG NLG . 4. Auflag. Stuttgart Thieme; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Bischoff Ch, Buchner H. (Hrsg.) SOPs Neurophysiologische Diagnostik. Stuttgart Thieme; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Vogel P, Aroyo I. Kursbuch klinische Neurophysiologie. 4. Aufl. Stuttgart Thieme; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Buchner H, Schönlau L, Ferbert A. Neurografie des N. Suralis. Klin Neurophysiol 2018; 49: 188-207
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee JA, Halpern EM, Lovblom LE. et al. Reliability and validity of a point-of-care sural nerve conduction device for identification of diabetic neuropathy Plons One. 2014; 9: e86515
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dyck PJ, Litchy WJ, Daube JR. et al. Individual attributes versus composite scores of nerve conduction abnormality: sensitivity, reproducibility, and concordance with impairment Muscle Nerve. 2003; 27: 202-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Landau ME, Diaz MI, Barner KC. et al. Changes in nerve conduction velocity across the elbow due to experimental error. Muscle Nerve 2002; 26: 838-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Buchthal F, Rosenfalck A. Evoked action potentials and conduction velocity in human sensory nerves. Brain Res 1966; 3: 1-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bortz J, Doering N. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. 5. Aufl. Heidelberg New York: Springer; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Tankisi H, Pugdahl K, Fugelsang-Frederiksen A. et al. Pathophysiology inferred from electrodiagnostic nerve tests and classification of polyneuropathies. Suggested guidelines Clin Neurophysiol. 2005; 116: 1571-1580
    PubMedGoogle Scholar