Publication:
Similarities and differences in cervical and thoracolumbar multisegmental motor responses and the combined use for testing spinal circuitries

dc.contributor.authorsSabbahi, Mohamed A.; Uzun, Selda; Bittar, Fikriye Ovak; Sengul, Yesim
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-14T10:59:56Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-11T10:44:00Z
dc.date.available2022-03-14T10:59:56Z
dc.date.issued2014-07
dc.description.abstractStudy design: Experimental study. Objective: To determine similarities and differences of C7 and T11-12 multisegmental motor responses (MMR) studies for the upper limbs (UL) and lower limbs (LL). Settings: Neuroscience Lab, TWU (School of Physical Therapy, TX, USA). Methods: C7 and T11-12 percutaneous electrical stimulations were applied while recording muscle action potentials from ULs and LLs. Results: The procedure of cervical MMR (CMMR) was easier in application than thoracolumbar MMR (TMMR), requiring less current intensities but cause more jolts in the trapezius/shoulder complex, due to close proximity of the stimulation electrodes. CMMR evoked large amplitude motor responses in the millivolts range in (UL) muscles, but smaller amplitude signal in (LL) muscles (in microvolts). TMMR evoked large amplitude motor responses in both UL and LL (in millivolts). The MMR amplitude was generally larger in the UL as compared to the LL, in the distal limb muscles more than in the proximal limb muscles. CMMR and TMMR for the UL were comparable in amplitude, latencies and action potential shapes. Signal latencies were longer for distal limb muscles as compared to proximal limb muscles and were slightly longer for LL as compared to UL muscles. MMR signals were either biphasic or triphasic in shape. Conclusion: CMMR and TMMR have similarities and differences in the methods and recording signal that must be considered during its clinical applications. Comparing the signal of the UL muscles with CMMR and TMMR could be a useful test for the integrity of the ascending and descending spinal pathways in patients with spinal cord injuries and diseases.
dc.identifier.doi10.1179/2045772313Y.0000000157
dc.identifier.eissn2045-7723
dc.identifier.issn1079-0268
dc.identifier.pubmed24621020
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/245677
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000342577700010
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectMultisegmental Motor Responses
dc.subjectSpinal Cord
dc.subjectThoracic
dc.subjectCervical
dc.subjectPropriospinal pathways
dc.subjectEPIDURAL STIMULATION
dc.subjectMUSCLE RESPONSES
dc.subjectLEG MUSCLES
dc.subjectCORD
dc.subjectMICROSTIMULATION
dc.subjectMODULATION
dc.subjectGENERATE
dc.subjectREFLEXES
dc.titleSimilarities and differences in cervical and thoracolumbar multisegmental motor responses and the combined use for testing spinal circuitries
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage413
oaire.citation.issue4
oaire.citation.startPage401
oaire.citation.titleJOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
oaire.citation.volume37

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
file.pdf
Size:
466.98 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format