Journal of Neurology

, Volume 240, Issue 7, pp 427–429 | Cite as

The utility of F wave chronodispersion in lumbosacral radiculopathy

  • Samson Mebrahtu
  • Michael Rubin
Original Communications
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The sensitivity of F wave chronodispersion (Fc) in evaluating nerve root pathology is unknown. We compared Fc in 91 patients with clinical and EMG evidence of L5 or S1 radiculopathy with Fc in 81 controls in order to evaluate its sensitivity in lumbosacral radiculopathy. F waves were obtained by stimulating the peroneal and tibial nerves behind the knee and recording from the extensor digitorum brevis (L5 predominant) and flexor hallucis brevis (S1 predominant) muscles, respectively. Fc was calculated by subtracting the shortest F wave latency from the longest and, in controls, ranged from 0.2 to 23.4 ms in the peroneal nerve, and from 1.2 to 13.4 ms in the tibial nerve (95th percentile = 13 ms for the peroneal nerve and 9.2 ms for the tibial nerve). In the patient group, Fc also ranged from 0.2 to 23.4 ms in the peroneal nerve, and from 0.4 to 18.2 ms in the tibial nerve. Only 5 (5.5%) and 8 (11.3%) patients for the peroneal and tibial nerves, respectively, had Fc values which fell beyond the 95th percentile, a percentage far below the sensitivity of F wave latency measurement and not substantially different from chance. Thus we conclude that Fc has no substantial additional value in evaluating lumbosacral radiculopathy over that of F wave latency.

Key words

Electromyography Lumbosacral radiculopathy F wave F chronodispersion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    AAEE Glossary of Terms in Clinical Electromyography. Nomenclature Committee (1987) Muscle Nerve 10 [Suppl 8]:G10-G11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguayo A, Nair CPV, Midgley R (1971) Experimental progressive compression neuropathy in the rabbit. Arch Neurol 24:358–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aminoff MJ, Goodin DS, Parry GJ, Barbaro NM, Weinstein RP, Rosenblum ML (1985) Electrophysiologic evaluation of lumbosacral radiculopathies: electromyography, late responses, and somatosensory evoked potentials. Neurology 35:1514–1518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eisen AA (1987) Radiculopathies and plexopathies. In: Brown WIT, Bolton CF (eds) Clinical electromyography. Butterworths, Boston, pp 51–73Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eisen A, Hoirch M, Moll A (1983) Evaluation of radiculopathies by segmental stimulation and somatosensory evoked potentials. Can J Neurol Sci 10:178–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fierro B, Raimondo D, Modica A (1990) F-response assessment in healthy control subjects. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 30:501–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher MA (1982) F response latency determination. Muscle Nerve 5:730–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher MA, Shivde AJ, Teixera C, Grainer S (1978) Clinical and electrophysiological appraisal of the significance of radicular injury in back pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 41:303–306PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalyon TA, Bilgic F, Ertem O (1983) The diagnostic value of late responses in radiculopathies due to disc herniation. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 23:183–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kimura J (1978) A comment. Muscle Nerve 1:250–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kimura J (1989) Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: principles and practice, 2nd edn. Davis, Philadelphia, pp 103–138, 227–274, 332–355Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mara TR (1987) F wave measurements: a comparison of various recording techniques in health and peripheral nerve disease. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 27:33–37Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Panayiotopoulos CP (1979) F chronodispersion: a new electrophysiologic method. Muscle Nerve 2:68–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang LM, Schwartz MS, Swash M (1988) Postural effects on F wave parameters in lumbosacral root compression and canal stenosis. Brain 111:207–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tonzola RF, Ackil AA, Shahani BT, Young RR (1981) Usefulness of electrophysiological studies in the diagnosis of lumbosacral root disease. Ann Neurol 9:305–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilbourn AJ, Aminoff MJ (1988) AAEE Minimonograph no. 32. The electrophysiologic examination in patients with radiculopathies. Muscle Nerve 11:1099–1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yates SK, Brown WF (1974) Characteristics of the F response: a single motor unit study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 42:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young RR, Shahani BT (1978) Clinical value and limitations of F-wave determination. Muscle Nerve 1:248–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samson Mebrahtu
    • 1
  • Michael Rubin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Neurology, Division of Clinical Neurophysiology (EMG)Hospital for Special Surgery and The New York Hospital-Cornell Medical CenterNewYorkUSA

Personalised recommendations