4.6 Article

Electrical impedance myography changes after incomplete cervical spinal cord injury: An examination of hand muscles

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 128, 期 11, 页码 2242-2247

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.08.027

关键词

Cervical spinal cord injury; Electrical impedance myography; Hand muscles

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation [2015A030313139]
  2. Guangzhou Science and Technology Programme [201704030039]
  3. Science & Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2013B090500099]
  4. Memorial Hermann Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study was to apply the newly developed electrical impedance myography (EIM) technique to examine hand muscles in patients with an incomplete cervical spinal cord injury (SCI).& para;& para;Methods: EIM was performed on the thenar, hypothenar, and first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscles of SCI (n = 16) and age-matched healthy control (n = 18) subjects. By sending low intensity and high frequency current through the skin and measuring the consequent voltage, EIM estimates the major impedance parameters, which include resistance (R), reactance (X) and phase angle (theta).& para;& para;Results: The SCI group had lower reactance and phase angle (p < 0.0001) as compared to the control group in all three muscles, and lower resistance in the thenar muscle (p < 0.05). The SCI group also demonstrated a smaller anisotropy in resistance (p < 0.0001) and larger anisotropy in phase angle (p < 0.05) compared to those from healthy controls.& para;& para;Conclusion: The reduced reactance and phase angle of paralyzed muscles could be due to changes of membrane integrity and fat infiltration, whereas the change in the anisotropy may reflect the rearrangement of muscle fiber geometry.& para;& para;Significance: The EIM provides a quick and convenient tool for examination of muscle alterations after SCI. (C) 2017 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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