Clinical and electroneurophysiological study on 44 cases of multiple system atrophy
- VernacularTitle:多系统萎缩44例的临床与神经电生理特点分析
- Author:
Han WANG
;
Liying CUI
;
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Multiple system atrophy;
Electromyography;
Evoked potentials;
Electrophysiology
- From:
Chinese Journal of Neurology
2001;0(02):-
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To identify the clinical and neurophysiological features of multiple system atrophy (MSA) and explore diagnostic values using various techniques in electro neurophysiology Methods Forty four subjects diagnosed as multiple system atrophy (MSA) during 1983 to 2001 in PUMC Hospital were studied retrospectively about their clinical features, routine electromyography (EMG), nerve conductive velocity (NCV), somatosensory evoked potential (SEP), motor evoked potential (MEP), brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) and visual evoked potential (VEP) The clinical features and the electroneurophysiologic results were analyzed in different subgroups (probable MSA and possible MSA, OPCA and non OPCA, classified MSA and unclassified MSA) Results Most patients were found to be suffered from autonomic failure (88 6%) and cerebella dysfunction (88 6%) The pyramidal sign was seen in 72 7% of patients No remarkable statistical differences were found in all of the above three domains The incidence of Parkinsonism was 36 4% of all the patients, which showed significant differences between probable and possible MSA (54 5% vs 18 2%), non OPCA and OPCA (50% vs 7 1%), unclassified MSA and classified MSA (52% vs 15 8%) EMG was abnormal in 7 patients (38 1%), all of them were neurogenic impairments The rates of abnormal EMG were varied differently between probable and possible MSA (54 5% vs 22 2%), non OPCA and OPCA (53 8% vs 14 3%), unclassified MSA and classified MSA (58 3% vs 12 5%), but without statistical differences The abnormal rates in BAEP,SEP, VEP and MEP were 56 7%, 28%, 23 1% and 20 0%, respectively, and there were no significant differences between subgroups Conclusions It should be hard to divide MSA into groups only by the clinical manifestations All EPs were abnormal in some extent The most sensitive test is BAEP in current study, but there were no differences among the subgroups in the rates of abnormal EPs The difference of EMG and NCV between the groups showed that the technique might be helpful in the diagnosis of MSA
