The high amplitude somatosensory evoked potential in progressive myoclonic epilepsy. Its relationship with the myoclonus-related cortical spike

1980 ◽  
pp. 475-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Shibasaki ◽  
Y. Yamashita ◽  
Y. Kuroiwa
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abu-Hegazy ◽  
Azza Elmoungi ◽  
Eman Eltantawi ◽  
Ahmed Esmael

Abstract Background Electrophysiological techniques have been used for discriminating myoclonus from other hyperkinetic movement disorders and for classifying the myoclonus subtype. This study was carried out on patients with different subtypes of myoclonus to determine the electrophysiological characteristics and the anatomical classification of myoclonus of different etiologies. This study included 20 patients with different subtypes of myoclonus compared with 30 control participants. Electrophysiological study was carried out for all patients by somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalography (EEG) while the control group underwent SSEP. SSEP was evaluated in patients and control groups by stimulation of right and left median nerves. Results This study included 50 cases with myoclonus of different causes with mean age of 39.3 ± 15.7 and consisted of 23 males and 27 females. Twenty-nine (58%) of the patients were epileptics, while 21 (42%) were non-epileptics. Cases were classified anatomically into ten cases with cortical myoclonus (20%), 12 cases with subcortical myoclonus (24%), and 28 cases with cortical–subcortical myoclonus (56%). There was a significant difference regarding the presence of EEG findings in epileptic myoclonic and non-epileptic myoclonic groups (P = 0.005). Also, there were significant differences regarding P24 amplitude, N33 amplitude, P24–N33 peak-to-peak complex amplitude regarding all types of myoclonus. Primary myoclonic epilepsy (PME) demonstrated significant giant response, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) demonstrated no enhancement compared to controls, while secondary myoclonus demonstrated lower giant response compared to PME. Conclusion Somatosensory evoked potential and electroencephalography are important for the diagnosis and anatomical sub-classification of myoclonus and so may help in decision-making regarding to the subsequent management.


Author(s):  
Andrew Eisen

Three decades have elapsed since Dawson (1947) recorded the first somatosensory evoked potential (SEP). Simple superimposition of individual responses was possible because the patient had progressive myoclonic epilepsy. In this disease the SEP amplitude is much enhanced (Shibasaki et al, 1978; Kelly et al, 1981). Subsequently Dawson (1951, 1954) presented his averager to the Physiological Society, thereby initiating the present-day explosive growth of evoked potentials.SEPs are made up of components with varying latencies. The components are best identified by latency and polarity as recorded at the scalp (P = positive and N = negative). Nevertheless, the nomenclature of somatosensory evoked potentials can be extremely confusing, mainly because the same component can have a different polarity depending on the electrode montage used. Generally speaking (but this is not a firm rule), far-field (subcortical) potentials are positive in polarity when a non-cephalic reference is used, whereas these same components have a negative polarity when the reference is on the scalp. It is therefore useful to always indicate the recording montage being employed. In addition, use of absolute latencies in the terminology can cause confusion because they are dependent upon length and body height. For example, the brachial plexus component usually occurs at about 9 msec, but may extend to as long as 11 or more msec in a very tall individual. Subsequent components then become difficult to identify in relation to normal means.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clécio de Oliveira Godeiro Junior ◽  
Thiago Cardoso Vale ◽  
Cintia Oliveira de Melo Afonso ◽  
Fernando Kok ◽  
José Luiz Pedroso ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document