4.6 Article

Electromyographic findings in primary lateral sclerosis during disease progression

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 132, 期 12, 页码 2996-3001

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2021.08.022

关键词

Primary lateral sclerosis; Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Electromyography; Fasciculation potentials; Motor unit potentials

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [PTDC/CCICIF/4613/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most PLS patients exhibit minor and stable EMG abnormalities, but those with more EMG abnormalities show a faster disease progression.
Objective: To characterize electromyographic (EMG) findings in patients with primary lateral sclerosis (PLS) during the disease course. Methods: In PLS patients we scored spontaneous activity and motor unit action potential (MUP) pattern on EMG. We compared patients according to lower (group A) and higher (group B) EMG scores. EMG studies were repeated at intervals longer than 11 months; two or three repeat studies were required for inclusion in the analysis. Results: We studied 22 patients. Fasciculation potentials were found in 13 and fibrillations/positive sharp waves (fibs/sw) in 3 patients. Both were stable over time. Most patients had MUP abnormalities (n = 17), with worsening in the lower limbs in patients with three evaluations (p = 0.010). Compared to group A (n = 12), patients of group B (n = 10) had a significant shorter disease duration (median 10.9 vs 15.2 years, p < 0.001), lower functional score at both first (39 vs 45, p = 0.034) and last (29 vs 38, p = 0.003) evaluations, and had a faster functional decline (0.19 vs 0.08, p = 0.004). Conclusions: Most PLS patients showed minor and stable EMG abnormalities, without progression to ALS. Patients with more EMG abnormalities have a faster progression. Significance: EMG abnormalities in most PLS patients are minor and stable. (C) 2021 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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