4.7 Article

Normative data for the segmental acquisition of contact heat evoked potentials in cervical dermatomes

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep34660

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030 135558]
  2. Clinical Research Priority Program Neurorehab of the University of Zurich, Switzerland
  3. International Foundation for Research in Paraplegia (IRP)
  4. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
  5. Rick Hansen Scholar Award
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030_135558] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) represent a neurophysiological approach to assess conduction in the spinothalamic tract. The aim of this study was to establish normative values of CHEPs acquired from cervical dermatomes (C4, C6, C8) and examine the potential confounds of age, sex, and height. 101 (49 male) healthy subjects of three different age groups (18-40, 41-60, and 61-80 years) were recruited. Normal (NB, 35-52 degrees C) followed by increased (IB, 42-52 degrees C) baseline stimulation protocols were employed to record CHEPs. Multi-variate linear models were used to investigate the effect of age, sex, and height on the CHEPs parameters (i.e., N2 latency, N2P2 amplitude, rating of perceived intensity). Compared to NB, IB stimulation reduced latency jitter within subjects, yielding larger N2P2 amplitudes, and decreased inter-subject N2 latency variability. Age was associated with reduced N2P2 amplitude and prolonged N2 latency. After controlling for height, male subjects had significantly longer N2 latencies than females during IB stimulation. The study provides normative CHEPs data in a large cohort of healthy subjects from segmentally examined cervical dermatomes. Age and sex were identified as important factors contributing to N2 latency and N2P2 amplitude. The normative data will improve the diagnosis of spinal cord pathologies.

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

4.7
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