Neurological Sciences

, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp 1293–1298 | Cite as

Correlation between muscle electrophysiology and strength after fibular nerve injury

  • Yu Hui Won
  • Kang-Won Kim
  • Jun Tak Choi
  • Myoung-Hwan Ko
  • Sung-Hee Park
  • Jeong-Hwan SeoEmail author
Original Article


Muscle strength measurement is important when evaluating the degree of impairment in patients with nerve injury. However, accurate and objective evaluation may be difficult in patients with severe pain or those who intentionally try to avoid full exertion. We investigated the usefulness of the affected-to-unaffected side electrophysiological parameter ratios as a measure of objective ankle dorsiflexion (ADF) strength in patients with unilateral fibular nerve injury (FNI). ADF strength was measured in patients with FNI via handheld dynamometer and manual muscle test (MMT). Fibular nerve compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude and latency and ADF strength of the affected side were presented as ratios to the corresponding measurements of the unaffected side. We analysed the correlation of the CMAP ratio with the ADF strength ratio using a dynamometer and compared the CMAP ratios according to MMT grade. Fifty-two patients with FNI were enrolled. The mean CMAP latency ratio did not differ between MMT groups (p = 0.573). The CMAP amplitude ratio proportionally increased with the quantified ADF strength ratio via dynamometer increase (ρ = 0.790; p < 0.001), but the CMAP latency ratio and the quantified ADF strength ratio did not significantly correlate (ρ = 0.052; p = 0.713). The average CMAP amplitude ratio significantly differed between MMT groups (p < 0.001), and post hoc tests showed significant differences in all paired comparisons except of Fair and Good grades (p = 0.064). Electrophysiological parameter ratio, such as the affected-to-unaffected side CMAP amplitude ratio, might be sensitive parameters for ADF power estimation after FNI.


Electrophysiological parameters Fibular nerve injury Muscle strength Manual muscle test Compound muscle action potential 



Ankle dorsiflexion


Compound muscle action potential


Fibular nerve injury


Manual muscle test



This research was supported by the “Research Base Construction Fund Support Program”, which was funded by Chonbuk National University in 2014. This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI15C1529)

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Basmajian JV, De Luca CJ (1985) Control properties of motor units. In: Basmajian JV, De Luca CJ (eds) Muscles alive: their functions revealed by electromyography, 5th edn. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, London, Sydney, pp 122–153Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lippold OCJ (1952) The relation between integrated action potentials in a human muscle and its isometric tension. J Physiol 117(4):492–499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woods JJ, Bigland-Ritchie B (1983) Linear and non-linear surface EMG/force relationships in human muscles. An anatomical/functional argument for the existence of both. Am J Phys Med 62(6):287–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hislop HJ, Avers D, Brown M (2013) Testing the muscles of the lower extremity. In: Hislop HJ, Avers D, Brown M (eds) Daniels and Worthingham’s muscle testing: Techniques of manual examination and performance testing, 9th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia, pp 258–260Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katoh M, Yamasaki H (2009) Comparison of reliability of isometric leg muscle strength measurements made using a hand-held dynamometer with and without a restraining belt. J Phys Ther Sci 21(1):37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ (2002) Nerve Conduction Studies. In: Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ (eds) Electrodiagnostic medicine, 2nd edn, Hanley & Velfus, Philadelphia, p 212Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perry J, Bekey GA (1981) EMG-force relationships in skeletal muscle. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 7(1):1–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henneman E, Olson CB (1965) Relations between structure and function in the design of skeletal muscles. J Neurophysiol 28(3):581–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Philipson L, Larsson PG (1988) The electromyographic signal as a measure of muscular force: a comparison of detection and quantification techniques. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 28(2–3):141–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Broman H, Bilotto G, De Luca CJ (1985) Myoelectric signal conduction velocity and spectral parameters: influence of force and time. J Appl Physiol 58(5):1428–1437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barkhaus PE, Nandedkar SD (1994) Recording characteristics of the surface EMG electrodes. Muscle Nerve 17(11):1317–1323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ (2002) Nerve Conduction Studies. In: Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ (eds) Electrodiagnostic medicine, 2nd edn. Hanley & Velfus, Philadelphia, pp 174–179Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Hui Won
    • 1
  • Kang-Won Kim
    • 1
  • Jun Tak Choi
    • 1
  • Myoung-Hwan Ko
    • 1
  • Sung-Hee Park
    • 1
  • Jeong-Hwan Seo
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationResearch Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk National University HospitalJeonjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Chonbuk National University Medical School and HospitalJeonjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations