Strength-duration time constant and rheobase measurements: Comparison of the threshold tracking method and a manual procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the strength-duration time constant (SDTC) and rheobase measurements obtained by the threshold tracking method (TT) and by a non-automated method (MM). METHODS: The MM procedure involved measuring, using a routine electrodiagnostic device, the intensity required to evoke a motor response whose amplitude corresponds to 40% of the maximum amplitude for four stimulus duration (1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.2 ms), and studying the linear relationship between stimulus charge and stimulus duration (slope = rheobase, intercept on the x-axis = SDTC). Using TT and MM, 30 successive healthy subjects (mean age = 38 years old) underwent a prospective evaluation of SDTC and rheobase of the median nerve motor axons at the wrist. Nerve stimulation and bipolar recording of evoked motor responses were performed with disposable self-adhesive surface electrodes. RESULTS: The Spearman correlations between the two methods were 0.78 (p < 0.0001) for SDTC and 0.96 (p < 0.0001) for the rheobase. The Bland-Altman analysis did not reveal any systematic bias of MM compared to TT. CONCLUSIONS: The MM procedure was reliable for strength-duration relationship analysis. SIGNIFICANCE: We encourage neurophysiologists, who do not have dedicated threshold tracking equipment, not to hesitate to use these simple tools to assess peripheral nerve excitability.

iMAX: A new tool for assessment of motor axon excitability. A multicenter prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to establish by a multicentric approach the reliability of a new technique evaluating motor axon excitability. METHODS: The minimal threshold, the lowest stimulus intensity allowing a maximal response by 1 mA increments (iUP) and then by 0.1 mA adjustments (iMAX) were prospectively derived from three nerves (median, ulnar, fibular) in four university centers (Liège, Marseille, Fraiture, Nice). iMAX procedure was applied in 28 healthy volunteers (twice) and 32 patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT1a), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), Guillain-Barré syndrome (SGB) or axonal neuropathy. RESULTS: Healthy volunteers results were not significantly different between centers. Correlation coefficients between test and retest were moderate (> 0.5). Upper limits of normal were established using the 95th percentile. Comparison of volunteers and patient groups indicated significant increases in iMAX parameters especially for the CMT1a and CIDP groups. In CMT1a, iMAX abnormalities were homogeneous at the three stimulation sites, which was not the case for CIDP. CONCLUSIONS: The iMAX procedure is reliable and allows the monitoring of motor axon excitability disorders. SIGNIFICANCE: The iMAX technique should prove useful to monitor motor axonal excitability in routine clinical practice as it is a fast, non-invasive procedure, easily applicable without specific software or devices.