Journée Sanne Lotte, Journée Henricus Louis, Berends Hanneke Irene, Reed Steven Michael, de Bruijn Cornelis Marinus, Delesalle Cathérine John Ghislaine
Equine Diagnostics, Wyns, Netherlands.
Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Research Group of Comparative Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Front Neurosci. 2020 Sep 25;14:570372. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.570372. eCollection 2020.
Transcranial electrical (TES) and magnetic stimulation (TMS) are both used for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord in horses. Muscular motor evoked potentials (mMEP) were compared intra-individually for both techniques in five healthy horses. mMEPs were measured twice at increasing stimulation intensity steps over the extensor carpi radialis (ECR), tibialis cranialis (TC), and caninus muscles. Significance was set at < 0.05. To support the hypothesis that both techniques induce extracranially elicited mMEPs, literature was also reviewed.
Both techniques show the presence of late mMEPs below the transcranial threshold appearing as extracranially elicited startle responses. The occurrence of these late mMEPs is especially important for interpretation of TMS tracings when coil misalignment can have an additional influence. Mean transcranial motor latency times (MLT; synaptic delays included) and conduction velocities (CV) of the ECR and TC were significantly different between both techniques: respectively, 4.2 and 5.5 ms (MLT -MLT ), and -7.7 and -9.9 m/s (CV -CV ). TMS and TES show intensity-dependent latency decreases of, respectively, -2.6 (ECR) and -2.7 ms (TC)/30% magnetic intensity and -2.6 (ECR) and -3.2 (TC) ms/30V. When compared to TMS, TES shows the lowest coefficients of variation and highest reproducibility and accuracy for MLTs. This is ascribed to the fact that TES activates a lower number of cascaded interneurons, allows for multipulse stimulation, has an absence of coil repositioning errors, and has less sensitivity for varying degrees of background muscle tonus. Real axonal conduction times and conduction velocities are most closely approximated by TES.
Both intracranial and extracranial mMEPs inevitably carry characteristics of brainstem reflexes. To avoid false interpretations, transcranial mMEPs can be identified by a stepwise latency shortening of 15-20 ms when exceeding the transcranial motor threshold at increasing stimulation intensities. A ring block around the vertex is advised to reduce interference by extracranial mMEPs. mMEPs reflect the functional integrity of the route along the brainstem nuclei, extrapyramidal motor tracts, propriospinal neurons, and motoneurons. The corticospinal tract appears subordinate in horses. TMS and TES are interchangeable for assessing the functional integrity of motor functions of the spinal cord. However, TES reveals significantly shorter MLTs, higher conduction velocities, and better reproducibility.
经颅电刺激(TES)和磁刺激(TMS)均用于评估马脊髓的运动功能。在五匹健康马中对两种技术的肌肉运动诱发电位(mMEP)进行了个体内比较。在桡侧腕伸肌(ECR)、胫骨前肌(TC)和犬齿肌上,以递增的刺激强度步长对mMEP进行了两次测量。显著性设定为<0.05。为支持两种技术均能诱发颅外引发的mMEP这一假设,还对相关文献进行了综述。
两种技术均显示在经颅阈值以下存在晚期mMEP,表现为颅外引发的惊吓反应。这些晚期mMEP的出现对于解释TMS描记图尤为重要,因为线圈未对准可能会产生额外影响。两种技术之间,ECR和TC的平均经颅运动潜伏期(MLT;包括突触延迟)和传导速度(CV)存在显著差异:分别为4.2和5.5毫秒(MLT -MLT ),以及-7.7和-9.9米/秒(CV -CV )。TMS和TES显示强度依赖性潜伏期分别减少-2.6(ECR)和-2.7毫秒(TC)/30%磁强度以及-2.6(ECR)和-3.2(TC)毫秒/30伏。与TMS相比,TES显示MLT的变异系数最低,再现性和准确性最高。这归因于TES激活的级联中间神经元数量较少,允许进行多脉冲刺激,不存在线圈重新定位误差,并且对不同程度的背景肌肉张力敏感性较低。真实的轴突传导时间和传导速度最接近TES所测得的结果。
颅内和颅外mMEP不可避免地具有脑干反射的特征。为避免错误解读,当在递增刺激强度下超过经颅运动阈值时,经颅mMEP可通过潜伏期逐步缩短15 - 20毫秒来识别。建议在头顶周围进行环形阻滞以减少颅外mMEP的干扰。mMEP反映了沿脑干核、锥体外系运动束、脊髓固有神经元和运动神经元的通路的功能完整性。在马中皮质脊髓束似乎处于次要地位。TMS和TES在评估脊髓运动功能的功能完整性方面可相互替代。然而,TES显示出明显更短的MLT、更高的传导速度和更好的再现性。