Effect of interelectrode distance on sural nerve action potential parameters

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 183-188

  Plastaras, Christopher T ^a,e   Marciniak, Christina M ^a   Sipple, Daniel P ^a   D'Amore, Kirsten Gross ^b   Garvan, Cynthia ^c   Zaman, Shehzaad M ^d  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Rehab Med Assoc of the Carolinas   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (United States)

^e REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Action Potentials; Electromyography; Neural Conduction; Sural Nerve

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ELECTRODE; ELECTRODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NERVE CONDUCTION; NERVE INJURY; NERVE POTENTIAL; PERONEUS NERVE; SENSORY NERVE CONDUCTION; SEX RATIO; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURAL NERVE;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ADULT; ELECTRODES; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEURAL CONDUCTION; REFERENCE VALUES; SURAL NERVE;

EID: 39749155786     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318164aa04     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Dumitru D, Walsh NE: Practical instrumentation and common sources of error. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1988;67:55-65
2. Dumitru D: Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Philadelphia, Hanley & Belfus, Inc., 1995, pp 414-5
3. Lee HJ, DeLisa JA, Bach JR: Physiologic considerations in the determination of optimum interelectrode distance for the antidromic recording of compound sensory nerve action potentials. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993;72:99-100
4. Cohn TG, Wertsch JJ, Pasupuleti DV, Loftsgaarden JD, Schenk VA: Nerve conduction studies: orthodromic vs antidromic latencies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:579-82
5. Gitter AJ, Stolov WC: AAEM minimonograph #16: instrumentation and measurement in electrodiagnostic medicine - part I. Muscle Nerve 1995;18:799-811
6. Evanoff V Jr, Buschbacher RM: Optimal interelectrode distance in sensory and mixed compound nerve action potentials: 3- versus 4-centimeter bar electrodes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:405-8
7. Buschbacher RM: Sural and saphenous 14-cm antidromic sensory nerve conduction studies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82:421-6
8. Schuchmann JA: Sural nerve conduction: a standardized technique. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1977;58:166-8
9. Truong XT, Russo FI, Vagi I, Rippel DV: Conduction velocity in the proximal sural nerve. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1979;60:304-8
10. Walker FO: Optimal interelectrode recording distances. Muscle Nerve 1996;19:536-8
11. Ven AA, Van Hees JG, Stappaers KH: Effect of size and pressure of surface recording electrodes on amplitude of sensory nerve action potentials. Muscle Nerve 2004;30:234-8
12. Tran TMP, Moss F, Robinson LR, Chiou-Tan FY: Increased threshold sural amplitude after upper limb isometric contraction in complete paraplegics. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000;79:542-6
13. Vinck E, Coorevits P, Cagnie B, De Muynck M, Vanderstraeten G, Cambier D: Evidence of changes in sural nerve conduction mediated by light emitting diode irridiation. Lasers Med Sci 2005;20:35-40
14. Robinson LR, Rubner DE, Wahl PW, Fujimoto WY, Stolov WC: Influences of height and gender on normal nerve conduction studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:1134-6
15. Rivner MH, Swift TR, Malik K: Influence of age and height on nerve conduction. Muscle Nerve 2001;24:1134-41
16. Buschbacher R: Body mass index effect on common nerve conduction study measurements. Muscle Nerve 1998;21:1398-1404