TY - JOUR
T1 - The utility of motor unit number estimation methods versus quantitative motor unit potential analysis in diagnosis of ALS
AU - Jacobsen, Anna Bystrup
AU - Kristensen, Rikke
AU - Kristensen, Alexander Gramm
AU - Duez, Lene
AU - Beniczky, Sándor
AU - Fuglsang-Frederiksen, Anders
AU - Tankisi, Hatice
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - Objective: To compare the diagnostic utility of motor unit number estimation (MUNE) methods to motor unit potential (MUP) analysis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Methods: Twenty-five patients (1 definite, 11 probable, 9 possible ALS and 4 progressive muscular atrophy) and 22 healthy controls were prospectively included. Quantitative MUP analysis and three MUNE methods; Multiple Point Stimulation MUNE (MPS), Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) and MScanFit MUNE (MScan) were done in abductor pollicis brevis muscle. The sensitivities were compared by McNemar chi-square test. MUNE, MUP and revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) parameters were correlated by regression analysis. Results: The sensitivities of MPS (76%) and MScan (68%) were higher than MUP duration (36%) and amplitude (40%) in detecting motor unit loss (p < 0.05). MUNE methods increased the categorical probability from possible to probable ALS in 4 patients (16%). There was only significant correlation between ALSFRS-R and MScan (r = 0.443, p = 0.027) among the electrophysiological tests. MUNE methods did not correlate to MUP parameters. Conclusions: MUNE methods are more sensitive in showing abnormality than MUP analysis. Significance: MUNE methods, in particular MScan, may have the potential to be implemented in the clinical practice for diagnosis and follow-up of neuromuscular disorders particularly ALS.
AB - Objective: To compare the diagnostic utility of motor unit number estimation (MUNE) methods to motor unit potential (MUP) analysis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Methods: Twenty-five patients (1 definite, 11 probable, 9 possible ALS and 4 progressive muscular atrophy) and 22 healthy controls were prospectively included. Quantitative MUP analysis and three MUNE methods; Multiple Point Stimulation MUNE (MPS), Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) and MScanFit MUNE (MScan) were done in abductor pollicis brevis muscle. The sensitivities were compared by McNemar chi-square test. MUNE, MUP and revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) parameters were correlated by regression analysis. Results: The sensitivities of MPS (76%) and MScan (68%) were higher than MUP duration (36%) and amplitude (40%) in detecting motor unit loss (p < 0.05). MUNE methods increased the categorical probability from possible to probable ALS in 4 patients (16%). There was only significant correlation between ALSFRS-R and MScan (r = 0.443, p = 0.027) among the electrophysiological tests. MUNE methods did not correlate to MUP parameters. Conclusions: MUNE methods are more sensitive in showing abnormality than MUP analysis. Significance: MUNE methods, in particular MScan, may have the potential to be implemented in the clinical practice for diagnosis and follow-up of neuromuscular disorders particularly ALS.
KW - Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
KW - MScanFit
KW - Motor unit number estimation
KW - Motor unit potential analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041461729&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Journal article
SN - 1388-2457
VL - 129
SP - 646
EP - 653
JO - Clinical Neurophysiology
JF - Clinical Neurophysiology
IS - 3
ER -