Yazar "Esmer, Ali Firat" seçeneğine göre listele
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
Öğe Proximal Conduction Time Along The Lumbar Plexus(Journal Neurological Sciences, 2012) Uysal, Hilmi; Bademkiran, Fikret; Albayrak, Nural; Esmer, Ali Firat; Keles, Nigar; Sindel, Muzaffer; Tekdemir, Ibrahim; Kizilay, Ferah; Ertekin, CumhurScientific Background: One of the matters in clinical neurophysiology is evaluation of the proximal conduction time along the lumbar plexus. Objectives: Instead of investigating only distal segment of the nerve from the groin as is generally done we aimed to investigate both proximal and distal parts of the nerves originating from the lumbar plexus. Material and Methods: In this paper different proximal conduction methods were studied in 109 healthy adult human subjects by measuring proximal motor conduction time of femoral, obturator and genitofemoral nerve along the lumbar plexus using both by using lumbar magnetic and peripheral electrical stimulation and by using the H-reflex methods in adductor and quadriceps muscle group. The anatomical parts of the study were applied on 20 human adult cadavers, dissecting femoral, obturator genitofemoral nerve and roots proximally. Results: The total distance from ligamentum inguinale to spinal level was 392.4 +/- 13.3mm in femoral nerve. The total distance was approximately 382.8 +/- 11.1mm in obturator nerve and the total distance was approximately 353.1 +/- 12.5 mm in genitofemoral nerve. With the H reflex method, using the distance obtained from the cadaver, femoral and obturator nerve proximal conduction velocity were determined to be 62.5 +/- 6.1 m/sec and 53.6 +/- 7.4 m/sec, respectively. Using lumbar magnetic stimulation and the peripheral electrical stimulation, proximal conduction velocities in femoral, obturator and genitofemoral nerves were determined to be 59.1 +/- 13.3m/sec, 52.7 +/- 14.9 and 58.7 +/- 0.8 m/sec, respectively. Conclusions: No statistical differences were found between the proximal conduction velocities elicited by both methods. Either approach is preferable to evaluate proximal conduction time.