• KARM
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission
ABOUT
ARTICLE TYPES
BROWSE ARTICLES
AUTHOR INFORMATION

Articles

Original Article

The Correlation of Hemiplegic Upper Limb Recovery with SEP and MEP in Subjects with a Stroke.

Lee, Jae Joon , Jung, Han Young
Journal of the Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine 2008;32(5):512-517.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Inha University College of Medicine, Korea. rmjung@inha.ac.kr
  • 2,228 Views
  • 22 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
prev next

Objective: To investigate whether combined somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and motor evoked potential (MEP) would provide more reliable data in predicting hemiplegic upper limb function in subjects with an acute stroke. Method: We enrolled 59 subjects (34 males; mean age, 56.7 years) with stroke involving the middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory. The SEP and MEP were recorded within a month from the onset time of the stroke. Simultaneously, the manual function test (MFT) and the self-care in functional independence measure (Fsc) were selected for evaluation (MFT-Initial and Fsc-Initial). The MFT and Fsc were assessed every other week until improvement was no longer observed (MFT-Final and Fsc-Final). The subjects were divided into two groups according to SEP and MEP results. With the results from the two methods combined, the subjects were divided into three groups: responses in both, responses in only one, and responses in none. Data were analyzed to find the correlation of MFT or Fsc with the results of SEP and MEP combined and individually. Results: Both SEP and MEP had a correlation with MFT- Initial and MFT-Final, but not with Fsc-Initial and Fsc-Final (p<0.05), whether combined or not. However, combining the SEP and MEP resulted in a stronger correlation with MFT-Initial and MFT-Final. Conclusion: Combining SEP and MEP is a more effective means to detect the recovery of motor weakness for hemiplegic upper limb in stroke subjects, although SEP or MEP alone has a correlation with recovery as well. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2008; 32: 512-517)

TOP