Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:01:14.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Difference of Disability Between Electrophysiologic Subgroups of Essential Tremor*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2016

M. Cenk Akbostanci ,
Sedat Ulkatan ,
Aytaç Yigit ,
Nursel Aydin  and
Nermin Mutluer
M. Cenk Akbostanci*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Sedat Ulkatan
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Aytaç Yigit
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Nursel Aydin
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Nermin Mutluer
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Ankara Üniversitesi, Tip Fakültesi, Ibni Sina Hastanesi, 6. Kat, 06100, Samanpazari, Ankara, Turkey.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

The aim of the study was to test the validity of the controversial subdivision of essential tremor (ET) patients into electrophysiological subgroups.

Methods:

We evaluated a hundred patients with ET using surface electromyographic (EMG) recordings of antagonist forearm muscles and distinguished three groups: the first group showed synchronous activity of antagonistic muscles, the second showed alternating activity of antagonist muscles; and the third group consisted of patients whose EMG recordings were not compatible with the other two groups. We compared patients with synchronous and alternating activity in terms of sex, age at onset, duration of illness, family history of tremor, symmetry and frequency of tremor, and the scores of a disability scale.

Results:

The only significant difference between the patients with synchronous and alternating activity was that the patients with synchronous activity were more disabled.

Conclusion:

This result adds to the evidence for distinct electrophysiological subgroups of ET with distinct clinical properties.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:But:

Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer la validité d'une subdivision controversée des patients présentant un tremblement essentiel (TE) en sous-groupes électrophysiologiques.

Méthodes:

Nous avons évalué cent patients présentant un TE au moyen d'enregistrements électromyographiques (ÉMG) de surface des muscles antagonistes de l'avant-bras et nous les avons divisés en trois groupes. Le premier groupe avait une activité synchrone des muscles antagonistes alors que le second avait une activité alternante des muscles antagonistes. Le troisième groupe était composé de patients dont l'enregistrement ÉMG n'était pas compatible avec ceux des deux autres groupes. Nous avons comparé les patients présentant une activité synchrone à ceux qui présentaient une activité alternante quant au sexe, à l'âge de début, à la durée de la maladie, à l'histoire familiale de tremblement, à la symétrie et à la fréquence du tremblement ainsi qu'au score à l'échelle d'invalidité.

Résultats:

La seule différence significative entre les patients présentant une activité synchrone et une activité alternante était que les patients présentant une activité synchrone avaient un degré d'invalidité supérieur à ceux qui présentaient une activité alternante.

Conclusion:

Ces observations sont en faveur de l'existence de sous-groupes électrophysiologiques distincts, avec des caractéristiques cliniques distinctes, chez les patients atteints de TE.

Type
Original Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 60 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2000

Footnotes

*

Presented at the 8th Meeting and 10th Anniversary of the European Neurological Society, June 6-10, 1998, Nice, France.

References

REFERENCES

1. Deuschl, G, Lücking, CH, Schenck, E. Essential tremor: electrophysiological and pharmacological evidence for a subdivision. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 1435–1441.Google Scholar
2. Boose, A, Spieker, S, Jentgens, C, Dichgans, J. Wrist tremor: investigation of agonist-antagonist interaction by means of long-term EMG recording and cross-spectral analysis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1996; 101: 355–363.Google Scholar
3. Shahani, BT, Young, RY. Physiological and pharmacological aids in the differential diagnosis of tremor. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1976; 39: 772–783.Google Scholar
4. Sabra, HF, Hallett, M. Action tremor with alternating activity in antagonist muscles. Neurology 1984; 34: 151–156.Google Scholar
5. Koller, WC, Busenbark, K, Gray, C, Hassanein, RS, Dubinsky, R. Classification of essential tremor. Clin Neuropharmacol 1992; 15: 81–87.Google Scholar
6. Deuschl, G, Zimmerman, R, Genger, H, Lücking, CH. Physiological classification of essential tremor. In: Findley, LJ, Koller, WC, eds. Handbook of Tremor Disorders. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1995: 195–208.Google Scholar
7. Koller, WC, Busenbark, K. Essential tremor. In: Watts, RL, Koller, WC, eds. Movement Disorders: Neurologic Principles and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997: 365–385.Google Scholar
8. Bain, PG, Findley, LJ, Atchinson, P et al. Assessing tremor severity. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1993: 56: 868–873.Google Scholar
9. Hsu, YD, Chang, MK, Sung, SC, Hsein, HH, Deng, JC. Essential tremor: clinical, electromyographical and pharmacological studies in 146 Chinese patients. Chung Hua I Hsueh Tsa Chih 1990; 45: 93–99.Google Scholar
10. Koguchi, Y, Nakajima, M, Kawamura, M, Hirayama, K. Clinical subtypes of essential tremor and their electrophysiological and pharmacological differences. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 1995; 35: 132–136.Google ScholarPubMed
11. Elble, RJ. Physiologic and essential tremor. Neurology 1986; 36: 225–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Rothwell, JC. Pathophysiology of essential tremor. In: Findley, LJ, Koller, WC, eds. Handbook of Tremor Disorders. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1995: 185–194.Google Scholar
13. Elble, RJ, Higgins, C, Hughes, L. Essential tremor entrains rapid voluntary movements. Exp Neurol 1994; 126: 138–143.Google Scholar