WOS

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/932

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.Electromyography

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Pain levels of examined muscles and gender differences in pain during electromyography
    (KARE PUBL, 2015-01-01) Yalinay Dikmen, Pinar; Ilgaz Aydinlar, Elif; Karlikaya, Geysu
    Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pain level of each muscle during an EMG study and also search for any association between the pain levels and gender. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-seven subjects (166 females and 111 males) participated in the present study. Numeric analogue scale (NAS) was obtained from the patients after needle EMG for each muscle. Results: In total, 1242 muscles were examined. The highest pain levels among examined muscles were found on Abductor Pollicis Brevis (APB) (5.8 +/- 2.6), First Dorsal Interosseous (4.2 +/- 2.6) and Vastus Lateralis (4.0 +/- 2.6). NAS levels of the female patients (4.3 +/- 2.7) were apparently higher than those of the male patients (2.8 +/- 2.3) (p<0.01). Conclusion: First Dorsal Interosseous muscle was found less painful than APB muscle for the patients. Our study displayed greater pain sensitivity among females compared with males during the needle EMG
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Diagnostic use of dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potentials in spinal disorders: Case series
    (MANEY PUBLISHING, 2013-01-01) Dikmen, Pinar Yalinay; Oge, A. Emre
    Objective/Context: Dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potentials (dSEPs) may be valuable for diagnostic purposes in selected cases with spinal disorders. Design: Reports on cases with successful use of dSEPs. Findings: Cases 1 and 2 had lesions causing multiple root involvement (upper to middle lumbar region in Case 1 and lower sacral region in Case 2). Cystic lesions in both cases seemed to compress more than one nerve root, and stimulation at the center of the involved dermatomes in dSEPs helped to reveal the functional abnormality. Cases 3 and 4 had lesions involving the spinal cord with or without nerve root impairment. In Case 3, an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-verified lesion seemed to occupy a considerable volume of the lower spinal cord, causing only very restricted clinical sensory and motor signs. In Case 4, a cervical MRI showed a small well-circumscribed intramedullary lesion at right C2 level. All neurophysiological investigations were normal in the latter two patients (motor, tibial, and median somatosensory-evoked potentials in Case 3, and electromyography in both) except for the dSEPs. Conclusions: Objectifying the presence and degree of sensory involvement in spinal disorders may be helpful for establishing diagnoses and in therapeutic decision-making. Valuable information could be provided by dSEPs in selected patients with multiple root or spinal cord involvement.