Abstract
Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 (DM1) and 2 (DM2) present with distinct though overlapping clinical phenotypes. Comparative imaging data on skeletal muscle involvement are not at present available. We used the novel technique of whole body 3.0 Tesla (T) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to further characterize musculoskeletal features in DM2 and compared the results with DM1.
MRI findings of 15 DM1 and 14 DM2 patients were evaluated with respect to patterns of skeletal muscle affection and clinical data using the Muscular Impairment Rating Scale (MIRS) and Medical Research Council scale (MRC).
All DM1 patients had pathological MRI compared with only 5 DM2 patients. In contrast to DM2, DM1 patients showed a characteristic distribution of muscle involvement with frequent and early degeneration of the medial heads of gastrocnemius muscles, and a perifemoral semilunar pattern of quadriceps muscle affection sparing the rectus femoris. The most frequently affected muscles in DM1 were the medial heads of gastrocnemius, soleus, and vastus medialis muscles. In DM2, however, the erector spinae and gluteus maximus muscles were most vulnerable to degeneration. MRI data were in line with the clinical grading in 12 DM1 and 3 DM2 patients. In 3 DM1 and 5 DM2 patients, MRI detected subclinical muscle involvement. 9 DM2 patients with mild to moderate proximal muscle weakness and/or myalgias had normal MRI. Pathological MRI changes in DM2 emerged with increasing age and were restricted to women.
Whole body 3.0T MRI is a sensitive imaging technique that demonstrated a characteristic skeletal muscle affection in DM1. In contrast, MRI was no reliable indicator for skeletal muscle involvement in mildly affected DM2 patients since myalgia and mild paresis were usually not reflected by MRI signal alterations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Castillo J, Pumar JM, Rodriguez JR, Prieto JM, Arrojo L, Martinez F, Noya M (1993) Magnetic-Resonance-Imaging of Muscles in Myotonic-Dystrophy. Eur J Radiol 17:141–144
Damian MS, Bachmann G, Herrmann D, Dorndorf W (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging of muscle and brain in myotonic dystrophy. J Neurol 240:8–12
Day JW, Ranum LPW (2005) RNA pathogenesis of the myotonic dystrophies. Neuromuscul Disord 15:5–16
Day JW, Ricker K, Jacobsen JF, Rasmussen LJ, Dick KA, Kress W, Schneider C, Koch MC, Beilman GJ, Harrison AR, Dalton JC, Ranum LP (2003) Myotonic dystrophy type 2: molecular, diagnostic and clinical spectrum. Neurology 60:657–664
Fischer D, Walter MC, Kesper K, Petersen JA, Aurino S, Nigro V, Kubisch C, Meindl T, Lochmuller H, Wilhelm K, Urbach H, Schroder R (2005) Diagnostic value of muscle MRI in differentiating LGMD2I from other LGMDs. J Neurol 252:538–547
Fleckenstein JL (2000) MRI of neuromuscular disease: the basics. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 4:393–419
George A, Schneider-Gold C, Zier S, Reiners K, Sommer C (2004) Musculoskeletal pain in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 2. Arch Neurol 61:1938–1942
Graven-Nielsen T, Mense S (2001) The peripheral apparatus of muscle pain: evidence from animal and human studies. Clin J Pain 17:2–10
Harper PS (2001) Myotonic dystrophy. WB Saunders, London
Lenk S, Fischer S, Kotter I, Claussen CD, Schlemmer HP (2004) Possibilities of whole-body MRI for investigating musculoskeletal diseases. Radiologe 44:844–853
Liquori CL, Ricker K, Moseley ML, Jacobsen JF, Kress W, Naylor SL, Day JW, Ranum LP (2001) Myotonic dystrophy type 2 caused by a CCTG expansion in intron 1 of ZNF9. Science 293:864–867
Mathieu J, Boivin H, Meunier D, Gaudreault M, Begin P (2001) Assessment of a disease-specific muscular impairment rating scale in myotonic dystrophy. Neurology 56:336–340
Medical Research Council (1986) Aids to the examination of the peripheral nervous system, Memorandum no. 45, 3rd edition edn. Baillière Tindall, Eastbourne
Mercuri E, Talim B, Moghadaszadeh B, Petit N, Brockington M, Counsell S, Guicheney P, Muntoni F, Merlini L (2002) Clinical and imaging findings in six cases of congenital muscular dystrophy with rigid spine syndrome linked to chromosome 1p (RSMD1). Neuromuscul Disord 12:631–638
Messineo D, Cremona A, Trinci M, Francia A, Marini A (1998) MRI in the study of distal primary myopathies and of muscular alterations due to peripheral neuropathies: possible diagnostic capacities of MR equipment with low intensity field (0.2 T) dedicated to peripheral limbs. Magn Reson Imaging 16:731–741
Nagele M, Reimers CD, Fenzl G, Witt TN, Gotz AE, Reimers K, Pongratz DE, Hahn D (1987) The value of imaging procedures in myology. Bildgebung 56:172–178
Pollitt C, Anderson LV, Pogue R, Davison K, Pyle A, Bushby KM (2001) The phenotype of calpainopathy: diagnosis based on a multidisciplinary approach. Neuromuscul Disord 11: 287–296
Ricker K, Koch MC, Lehmann-Horn F, Pongratz D, Speich N, Reiners K, Schneider C, Moxley RT III (1995) Proximal myotonic myopathy. Clinical features of a multisystem disorder similar to myotonic dystrophy. Arch Neurol 52:25–31
Rodiek SO (1985) NMR tomography of the skeletal muscles in neuromuscular diseases. Fortschr Röntgenstr 143:418–425
Rodiek SO, Kuther G, Juretschke HP, Hoepfel D, Schuff N (1986) MR-tomography and -spectroscopy of skeletal muscles using high magnetic field strengths. Fortschr Röntgenstr 144: 89–95
Schedel H, Reimers CD, Nagele M, Witt TN, Pongratz DE, Vogl T (1992) Imaging techniques in myotonic dystrophy. A comparative study of ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of skeletal muscles. Eur J Radiol 15:230–238
Schild H (2005) Clinical highfield MR. Fortschr Röntgenstr 177:621–631
Serratrice G, Salamon G, Jiddane M, Gastaut JL, Pellissier JF, Pouget J (1985) Results of muscular x-ray computed tomography in 145 cases of neuromuscular disease. Rev Neurol (Paris) 141:404–412
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kornblum, C., Lutterbey, G., Bogdanow, M. et al. Distinct neuromuscular phenotypes in myotonic dystrophy types 1 and 2. J Neurol 253, 753–761 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-006-0111-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-006-0111-5