A correlative study of Quantitative EMG and biopsy findings in 31 patients with myopathies

A direct correlation of QEMG with muscle biopsy findings might help delineate the sensitivity of QEMG in identifying muscle pathology as well as provide information on electrophysiological- histological correlations. In a study of 31 patients with a variety of myopathies we found that the sensitivity of QEMG was between 24 to 69% depending of the specific method of signal analysis. The positive predictive value of abnormal QEMG was more than 90% while its negative predictive value was only about 20%. Amplitude outlier analysis was superior especially in minimally weak muscles (MRC > 4) and was particularly sensitive at detecting increased variability in fiber size and more subtle myopathic changes.

[1]  F BUCHTHAL,et al.  Analysis of muscle action potentials as a diagnostic aid in neuro-muscular disorders. , 1952, Acta medica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[2]  F BUCHTHAL,et al.  Action potential parameters in normal human muscle and their physiological determinants. , 1954, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[3]  J. T. Black,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of clinical data, quantitative electromyography and histochemistry in neuromuscular disease. A study of 105 cases. , 1974, Journal of the neurological sciences.

[4]  F Buchthal,et al.  The diagnostic yield of quantified electromyography and quantified muscle biopsy in neuromuscular disorders , 1982, Muscle & nerve.

[5]  S D Nandedkar,et al.  Analysis of amplitude and area of concentric needle EMG motor unit action potentials. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  Steen Andreassen,et al.  Simulation of concentric needle EMG motor unit action potentials , 1988, Muscle & nerve.

[7]  R. Lovelace,et al.  Long‐duration polyphasic motor unit potentials in myopathies: A quantitative study with pathological correlation , 1990, Muscle & nerve.

[8]  A. Agresti.  An introduction to categorical data analysis , 1997 .

[9]  F. Mastaglia,et al.  Skeletal Muscle Pathology , 1992 .

[10]  E Stålberg,et al.  The ability of MUP parameters to discriminate between normal and neurogenic MUPs in concentric EMG: analysis of the MUP "thickness" and the proposal of "size index". , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  E Stålberg,et al.  Outliers, a way to detect abnormality in quantitative EMG , 1994, Muscle & nerve.

[12]  D. Sloane,et al.  An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis , 1996 .

[13]  E Stålberg,et al.  Quantitative motor unit potential analysis. , 1996, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[14]  A. Fuglsang-Frederiksen,et al.  Electromyography in myopathy , 1997, Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology.

[15]  E Zalewska,et al.  Global and detailed features of motor unit potential in myogenic and neurogenic disorders. , 1999, Medical engineering & physics.

[16]  Shin J. Oh.  Principles of clinical electromyography: case studies. , 1998, Journal of clinical neuromuscular disease.

[17]  R. Wallace.  Is this a practical approach? , 2001, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[18]  J. Zidar,et al.  Sensitivity of motor unit potential analysis in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy , 2006, Muscle & nerve.

[19]  Anders Fuglsang-Frederiksen,et al.  The role of different EMG methods in evaluating myopathy , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.