Diaphragm Pacing: Phrenic Nerve Stimulation in Quadriplegia with Four-pole Electrode System

1993 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 810
Author(s):  
Sung Su Chung
2003 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takaomi Taira ◽  
Naoto Takeda ◽  
Kaname Itoh ◽  
Akihiro Oikawa ◽  
Tomokatsu Hori

1985 ◽  
Vol 48 (1-6) ◽  
pp. 351-357
Author(s):  
H. Fodstad ◽  
G. Andersson ◽  
S. Blom ◽  
H. Linderholm

1980 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard K. Shaw ◽  
William W. L. Glenn ◽  
James F. Hogan ◽  
Mildred L. Phelps

✓ The electrophysiological status of phrenic nerve function has been determined by an assessment of the conduction time and diaphragm muscle action potential in patients who were being evaluated as candidates for diaphragm pacing, or who were being studied for suspected phrenic nerve injury or disease. The conduction time and muscle action potential were evoked by transcutaneous phrenic nerve stimulation or by stimulation with a permanently implanted diaphragm pacemaker. In normal volunteers, the conduction time was found to be 8.40 msec ± 0.78 msec (SD). Transcutaneous phrenic nerve stimulation was successful in predicting phrenic nerve viability in 116 of 120 nerves studied. The four false negatives were due to technical difficulty in locating the nerves in obese or uncooperative subjects. In patients who were selected for implantation of a diaphragm pacemaker, a conduction time that was prolonged (10 to 14 msec) preoperatively did not preclude successful diaphragm pacing. Postoperatively, a prolonged (> 10 msec) conduction time was associated with severe systemic disease or local nerve injury caused by trauma or infection. The elucidation of phrenic nerve function by such electrophysiological studies serves as a valuable adjunct to the selection and management of patients undergoing diaphragm pacing.


2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byung-chul Son ◽  
Deog-ryung Kim ◽  
Il-sup Kim ◽  
Jae Taek Hong

2018 ◽  
pp. 851-856
Author(s):  
Iris A. Perez ◽  
Sheila S. Kun ◽  
Thomas G. Keens

1990 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Hu ◽  
A. Comtois ◽  
E. Shadram ◽  
A. Grassino

Phrenic arterial blood flow has been shown to increase during bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation (BPNS). However, the role of unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation [left (LPNS) or right (RPNS)] on the blood flow and O2 consumption of the contralateral hemidiaphragm is not known and is explored here. In six anesthetized, mechanically hyperventilated dogs, left phrenic arterial blood flow (Qlpha) was measured (Doppler technique). Supramaximal (10 V, 30 Hz, 0.25-ms duration) LPNS, RPNS, and BPNS at a pacing frequency 15/min and duty cycle of 0.50 were delivered in separate runs. Left hemidiaphragmatic blood samples for gas analyses were obtained by left phrenic venous cannulation. During RPNS, Qlpha and left hemidiaphragmatic O2 consumption (VO2ldi) did not change significantly compared with control. During LPNS and BPNS, there was a significant increase in Qlpha and VO2ldi (P less than 0.01). There was no significant difference in Qlpha and VO2ldi between LPNS and BPNS (P greater than 0.05). We conclude 1) that there is a complete independence of left-right hemidiaphragmatic circulation both at rest and during diaphragm pacing and 2) that during unilateral stimulation transdiaphragmatic pressure is not related to diaphragmatic blood flow.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document