4.7 Article

Side and time variability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 84, Issue 23, Pages 2368-2371

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001666

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union [602273]
  2. IRCCS Foundation Carlo Besta Neurological Institute
  3. Ricerca Corrente
  4. Italian Ministry of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the right-to-left and short-term variability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) at the distal site of the leg. Methods: Patients with possible or probable small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and healthy volunteers (HVs) underwent skin biopsies at the right and left distal leg. A subgroup of participants underwent follow-up biopsies 20 days later. Biopsies were immunostained by polyclonal anti-protein gene product 9.5 antibodies, and IENFD was quantified in nonconsecutive sections following published guidelines by operators blinded to the participants' condition (diagnosis, side, and time of biopsy). Findings were referred to sex- and age-adjusted normative values. Results: Forty patients and 17 HVs underwent bilateral skin biopsies; 15 patients and 8 HVs underwent follow-up skin biopsies. Sural nerve and dorsal sural nerve conduction studies were normal in all participants. Interside IENFD did not differ both in patients (median 2.45 IENF/mm +/- 1.45 SD right; 2.2 IENF/mm +/- 1.32 SD left) and HVs (median 6.3 IENF/mm +/- 2.81 right; 6.2 IENF/mm +/- 2.3 SD left). The right-to-left correlation coefficients were excellent (Pearson 0.95 in SFN and 0.97 in HVs). The analysis of IENFD at 20-day follow-up biopsy showed no difference between sides in both groups and yielded excellent correlation coefficients. Conclusions: The diagnosis of SFN can be reliably ascertained by unilateral skin biopsy at the distal site of the leg, and IENFD is not expected to vary within 3 weeks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available