Magnetic Transcutaneous Stimulation of the Motor Pathway in Spinal Cord Disorders

  • T. Iizuka
  • H. Azuma
  • H. Tanaka
  • H. Sugioka
  • T. Kondo

Summary

Motor evoked potential (MEP) from small hand and foot muscles was measured by the transcranial magnetic stimulation according to Barker’s method. Central motor conduction time (CMCT) was calculated by stimulating over the scalp and then over the cervical and lumbar areas. In healthy subjects, the CMCT (head to neck) was 8.3 ± 1.2 (SD) ms (n = 50) in relaxed muscles and was 6.0 ± 1.4 (SD) ms (n = 29) in partially voluntarily activated muscles, and the CMCT (head to lumbar) was 16.1 ± 3.0 (SD) ms (n = 50) in relaxed muscles and was 14.5 ± 1.2 (SD) ms (n = 29) in partially activated muscles. F wave study was done in 14 patients and (F + M − 1)/2 was calculated according to Kimura’s formula. Clinical study showed that MEP and both CMCT with and without facilitation, and CMCT(F) were significantly prolonged in 18 patients with chronic compression cervical myelopathy and were abnormal in 5 patients with spinal cord injury (n = 23). The CMCT and clinical motor functions were well correlated. The pre- and postoperative data (n = 22) were compared and showed the reasonable results of this new method for measuring the motor function. Side effects were not encountered.

Keywords

Spondylosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barker AT, Freestone IL, Jalinous R, Merton PA, Morton HB (1985) Magnetic stimulation of the human brain. J Physiol 369: 3Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daube JR (1988) Selected application of magnetic stimulation AAEE/AEEGS Joint Symposium, pp 31–34Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hess CW, Mills KR, Murray NMF (1987) Responses in small hand muscles from magnetic stimulation of the human brain. J Physiol 388: 397–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iizuka T, Tanaka H, Sugioka H, Kondo T (1989) Assessment of the motor pathway in cervical myelopathy by transcutaneous magnetic stimulation. Sekitsui Sekizui Janaru (Spine & Spinal Coral) 2: 611–616Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jarrat JA (1986) Magnetic stimulation for motor conduction. AAEE Symposium, pp 27–33Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kimura J (1983) Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: Principle and practice Davis, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurokawa T, Tsuyama N, Tanaka H, Kobayashi M, Machida H, Nakamura K, Iizuka T, Hoshino Y (1982) Enlargement of spinal canal by sagittal splitting of spinous process. In: Onomura T, Hayashi K (eds) Progress in cervical spine surgery Bessatsu Seikei Geka (Orthopedic Surgery), Vol. 2. Nankodo, Tokyo, pp 234–240Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jou I, Matsuda H, Nakata N et al (1989) Experimental study on safety of transcranial stimulation J Electrodiagnosis of the spinal cord 11: 13–16Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mills KR, Murray NMF, Hess CW (1987) Magnetic and electrical transcranial brain stimulation; Physiological mechanism and clinical applications. Neurosurgery 20: 164–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsubokawa T, Katayama Y, Yamamoto T et al. (1987) Assessment of spinal cord injury with multimodality evoked spinal cord potentials. Part 2: Correlation with neurological outcome in clinical spinal cord injury. Neuro-orthopedics 3: 82–89Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Iizuka
    • 1
  • H. Azuma
  • H. Tanaka
  • H. Sugioka
  • T. Kondo
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySaitama Medical SchoolIruma, SaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations