4.5 Article

Early impairment of somatosensory evoked potentials in very young children with achondroplasia with foramen magnum stenosis

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 192-198

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13243

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo evaluate the contribution of somatosensory evoked potentials after median nerve (MN-SEPs) and posterior tibial nerve (PTN-SEPs) stimulation in functional assessment of cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis in children with achondroplasia. MethodWe reviewed MN-SEPs, PTN-SEPs, and spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations performed in 58 patients with achondroplasia (25 males, 33 females; age range 21d-16y 10mo; mean age 4y 3mo [SD 4y 1mo]). Patients were subdivided into four age categories: <2 years, between 2 to 4 years, between 4 to 8 years, and 8 years. The peak latency of P37 for PTN-SEPs, the peak latencies of N11, N13, P14, and N20, and the N13-N20 interpeak latency (IPL) for MN-SEPs were collected; the diagnostic accuracy measures of these parameters (analysis of receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curves) with respect to the presence of foramen magnum or lumbar spinal stenosis were analysed in each age category. ResultsThe ROC curve analysis showed that the most sensitive parameter in detecting the presence of foramen magnum stenosis was P37 latency in the first two age categories (<2y and 2-4y; sensitivity 0.63, specificity 1.00, and sensitivity 1.00, specificity 0.75 respectively). In the third age category (4-8y), the most sensitive parameter in detecting the presence of foramen magnum stenosis was IPLs N13-N20 (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.87), whereas in the last age category (8y), the most important parameter was N20 latency (sensitivity 0.75, specificity 0.77). InterpretationIn children with achondroplasia, the cortical component of PTN-SEPs is more sensitive than the cortical component and central conduction time of MN-SEPs in detection of cervical spinal cord compression at early ages.

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

4.5
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