4.6 Article

Quantifying muscle asymmetries in cervical dystonia with electrical impedance: A preliminary assessment

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 5, 页码 1027-1031

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.09.013

关键词

Dystonia; Electrical impedance myography; Diagnosis; Botulinum toxin

资金

  1. NIH [K24NS060951, RO1NS042037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Cervical dystonia (CD) lacks an objective quantitative measure. Electrical impedance myography (EIM) is a non-invasive assessment method sensitive to changes in muscle structure and physiology. We evaluate the potential role of EIM in quantifying CD, hypothesizing that patients would demonstrate differences in the symmetry of muscle electrical resistance compared to controls, and that this asymmetry would decrease after botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) treatment. Methods: EIM was performed on the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) and cervical paraspinal (PS) muscles of CD patients and age-matched controls. 50 kHz resistance was analyzed, comparing side-to-side asymmetry in patients and controls, and, in patients, before and after BoNT treatment. Results: Sixteen patients and 10 controls were included. Resistance asymmetry was on average 3-5 times higher in patients than controls. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated 91% accuracy of discriminating CD from normal. From pre-treatment to maximum BoNT effect, asymmetry decreased from 20.8(13.9-26.1)% to 6.2(3.1-9.9)% (SCM), and from 16.0(14.3-16.0)% to 8.4(7.0-9.2)% (PS), p < 0.05 (median, interquartile range). Conclusions: EIM effectively differentiates normal subjects from CD patients by revealing asymmetries in resistance values and detects improvement in muscle symmetry after treatment. Significance: These results suggest that EIM, a painless, non-invasive measure, can provide a useful quantitative metric in CD evaluation and deserves further study. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据