Abstract
Widespread fasciculations are an important clinical sign in, for example, degenerative lower motor neuron diseases (LMND). Usually they are detected by clinical inspection and electromyography. Recently myosonography has been proposed for the detection of fasciculations. This prospective study compares the value of these three modes of examination in patients with degenerative LMND. Seventy healthy control persons and 34 patients (11 women, 23 men; aged 43–78 years; median age 60.5) with LMND were included in the study. All participants were subjected to thorough visual screening for the presence of fasciculations. Fourteen muscles were examined bilaterally by myosonography and a median of 8 muscles were screened electromyographically (only in the patients); the investigators were blinded to the other findings. Clinical inspection and ultrasonography exhibited fasciculations in up to 5 and 8 muscles, respectively, in 8 healthy persons. Ultrasonography demonstrated fasciculations in all patients, clinical inspection in all but 2, and electromyography in 26 of 33 patients (1 patient was not examined electromyographically). Comparing the three methods, clinical observation revealed fasciculations in 42%, electromyography in 39%, and ultrasonography in 67% of all muscles. Thus, ultrasonography was significantly more sensitive than the other techniques (P < 0.001). The interrater agreement (correlation coefficient)r in respect of the presence or absence of fasciculation was 0.71 for the clinical, 0.85 for the electromyographic and 0.84 for the myosonographic examinations. Ultrasonography and electromyography were more reliable than the clinical examination (P < 0.001 andP < 0.01, respectively). Our study indicates that ultrasonography is more sensitive than clinical and electromyographic examination in visualizing fasciculations in patients with LMND. Additionally, it is more reliable than clinical examination.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 409–419
Bortz J (1985) Lehrbuch der Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 264, 276–279
Heijden A van der, Spaans F, Reulen J (1994) Fasciculation potentials in foot and leg muscles of healthy young adults. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 93: 163–168
Hjorth RJ, Walsh JC, Willison RG (1973) The distribution and frequency of spontaneous fasciculations in motor neuron disease. J Neurol Sci 18: 469–474
Howard RS, Murray NMF (1992) Surface EMG in the recording of fasciculations. Muscle Nerve 15: 1240–1245
Kimura J (1989) Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: principles and practice. 2nd edn. Davis, Philadelphia, pp 262, 432–433
Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8: 283–298
Reed DM, Kurland LT (1963) Muscle fasciculations in a healthy population. Arch Neurol 9: 363–367
Reimers CD, Müller W, Schmidt-Achert M, Heldwein, W, Pongratz DE (1988) Sonographische Erfassung von Faszikulationen. Ultraschall Med 9: 237–239
Rott H-D, Lang C, Engelhardt A, Grahmann F (1988) Sonographische Befunde bei pseudomyopathischer spinaler Muskelatrophie vom Typ Kugelberg-Welander. Ultraschall Klin Prax 3: 25–28
11.Tandan R, Bradley WG (1985) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, part 1. Clinical features, pathology, and ethical issues in management. Ann Neurol 18: 271–280
Trojaborg W, Buchthal F (1965) Malignant and benign fasciculations. Acta Neurol Scand 41 [Suppl]: 251–254
Vogel P, Tackmann W (1984) Zur “Spezifitat” elektromyographischer Befunde bei Vorderhomerkrankungen. Nervenarzt 55: 279–284
Walker FO, Donofrio PD, Harpold GJ, Ferrell WG (1990) Sonographic imaging of muscle contraction and fasciculations: a correlation with electromyography. Muscle Nerve 13: 33–39
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reimers, C.D., Ziemann, U., Scheel, A. et al. Fasciculations: Clinical, electromyographic, and ultrasonographic assessment. J Neurol 243, 579–584 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00900945
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00900945