Evaluation of the estimation of muscle fiber conduction velocity. Surface versus needle method.

Two techniques to measure muscle fiber conduction velocity (MFCV) were compared. First, muscle fibers of biceps muscle were directly stimulated with needle electrodes, and the latency of the evoked muscle fiber action potentials was measured at a distance of 5 cm. Subsequently, the MFCV was measured at the same place with surface electrodes using the cross-correlation method. Fourteen controls were studied and illustrative results of the measurements of 6 myopathy patients are given. A clear correlation between the mean values of the two methods was found. The surface EMG technique resulted in a systematically higher MFCV (mean 1.0 m/sec); the variability of MFCV was much higher with the invasive technique. The reasons for these differences are discussed. MFCV measurements are shown to be of diagnostic value in some myopathies, for example myositis. In myopathies with a global reduction of the MFCV the two methods are of equal value; in some cases of longstanding myositis the needle method demonstrated some very slowly conducting fibers which were not detected with the surface method.

[1]  F BUCHTHAL,et al.  Propagation velocity in electrically activated muscle fibres in man. , 1955, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[2]  H T Haenen,et al.  The muscle fiber conduction velocity and power spectra in familial hypokalemic periodic paralysis , 1988, Muscle & nerve.

[3]  S. Morimoto,et al.  Dependence of conduction velocity on spike interval during voluntary muscular contraction in human motor units , 2004, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[4]  L Arendt-Nielsen,et al.  Measurement of Muscle Fiber Conduction Velocity in Humans: Techniques and Applications , 1989, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[5]  E Stalberg,et al.  Propagation velocity in human muscle fibers in situ. , 1966, Acta physiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[6]  R. Cantello,et al.  Conduction velocity along human muscle fibers in situ , 1983, Neurology.

[7]  C. D. De Luca,et al.  Myoelectric signal conduction velocity and spectral parameters: influence of force and time. , 1985, Journal of applied physiology.

[8]  C. Håkansson.  Action potentials recorded intra- and extracellularly from the isolated frog muscle fibre in Ringer's solution and in air. , 1957, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[9]  T. Masuda,et al.  Changes of the average muscle fiber conduction velocity during a varying force contraction. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  Carlo J. De Luca,et al.  A Note on the Noninvasive Estimation of Muscle Fiber Conduction Velocity , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  J. Broenink,et al.  The different intracellular action potentials of fast and slow muscle fibres. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  M. Johnson,et al.  Data on the distribution of fibre types in thirty-six human muscles. An autopsy study. , 1973, Journal of the neurological sciences.

[13]  C. Håkansson.  Conduction velocity and amplitude of the action potential as related to circumference in the isolated fibre of frog muscle. , 1956, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[14]  M. Zwarts,et al.  Transient paresis in myotonic syndromes. A surface EMG study. , 1989, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[15]  S. Andreassen,et al.  Muscle fibre conduction velocity in motor units of the human anterior tibial muscle: a new size principle parameter. , 1987, The Journal of physiology.