Neurol India Home 
 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 1512--1516

Sural Sensory Nerve Action Potential: A Study in Healthy Indian Subjects at Tertiary Care Center of North-West India

Rajendra S Jain, Kamlesh Kumar 
 Department of Neurology, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Kamlesh Kumar
House No-47, Gangwal Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan
India

Abstract

Objectives: This study was done to obtain the reference data for the sural SNAP amplitude and latency at distances of 14, 12, and 10 cm from the active recording electrode in Indian healthy subjects for different age groups. Material and Methods: Two hundred forty-four healthy subjects (18–80 years) were included in this cross-sectional study. Subjects were divided into six groups according to age. Sural SNAP was recorded antidromically stimulating at three sites (14, 12, and 10 cm from the recording electrode). The quantitative variables were expressed as Mean ± SD/Median (IQR) and compared using t test/ANOVA. Transformed data for amplitude were analyzed with the use of paired t test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS version 20.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: Mean age of included subjects was 43.28 years. Maximum leg girth was at 14 cm. Analysis showed a significant difference in the leg girth at all three sites (P < 0.001). Sural SNAP latency at each stimulating site was compared in different age groups, no significant difference was found between groups (P = 0.19). Maximum amplitude was in the 18–30-years age group and amplitude was minimum in the 71–80-years age group (4.34 and 2.79, respectively). The difference in the amplitude recorded in the different age groups was found to be statistically different (P < 0.001). The difference in the amplitude recorded at each site was found to be statistically different (P < 0.001). Conclusion: This is the first study with a large sample size (244 subjects) to provide age-stratified reference data for SNAP in the Indian population by using three sites of stimulation at distances of 14, 12, and 10 cm from the recording electrode. This study shows that sural SNAP amplitude varies with the age of the subject and distance from stimulation.



How to cite this article:
Jain RS, Kumar K. Sural Sensory Nerve Action Potential: A Study in Healthy Indian Subjects at Tertiary Care Center of North-West India.Neurol India 2022;70:1512-1516


How to cite this URL:
Jain RS, Kumar K. Sural Sensory Nerve Action Potential: A Study in Healthy Indian Subjects at Tertiary Care Center of North-West India. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 8 ];70:1512-1516
Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2022/70/4/1512/355131


Full Text



Nerve conduction studies are an important tool in diagnosing polyneuropathy. Most polyneuropathies follow a length-dependent pattern, and the sensory nerves of the feet are usually affected in the early stages.[1],[2],[3],[4] Sural nerve is a sensory nerve placed superficially and distally in the foot, making it easily accessible for nerve conduction studies. Sural nerve is the most frequently studied nerve in the electrophysiology for diagnosis of polyneuropathy.

Abnormal sural sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) suggests involvement at the peripheral nerve level. Incorrect technique, excessive adipose tissue, edema in limbs, absence of age-stratified reference data, and anatomical variation can lead to abnormal reporting of a normal sural SNAP. This leads to an unwanted investigation of a normal subject.

In the elderly subjects, the normal sural SNAP is lower in amplitude than that in the younger subjects.[5],[6],[7],[8] A review of published literature for reference data on sural SNAP reveals very few studies in the Indian population as compared to the western population.[9],[10] Reference data on sural SNAP was also different in western and Indian studies. Many western studies recorded the SNAP at a distance of 14 cm from the lateral malleolus.[11],[12] A distance of 14 cm may not optimally apply to the Indian population because the average height of an Indian is lesser than their western counterparts, which implies a shorter limb length. The large calf girths at a distance of 14 cm, especially in obese and short-statured individuals, interfere with the recording of an optimal sural SNAP.

Indian normative data was shown in a study by Sreenivasan et al.[13] at three sites, but this had different values as compared to western normative data studies. Thus, this study was done to obtain the reference data for the sural SNAP amplitude and latency at distances of 14, 12, and 10 cm from the active recording electrode in Indian adults for different age groups and to evaluate the effects of other parameters, such as weight, body mass index (BMI), limb length, and limb girth at stimulating site on the sural SNAP.

 Material and Methods



Two-hundred forty-four healthy subjects were included in this cross-sectional study approved by the ethics committee of our institution. Informed consent was taken before the study. The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019. Participants included in the study were:

Patients referred to our laboratory with restricted abnormalities localized only to the upper limb (e.g., brachial plexus disorders and carpal tunnel syndrome)Healthy relatives of patients, healthy staff, and volunteers

All selected participants had normal neurological and general examination, without any sensory symptoms, and no past or present history of long-term treatment that can cause neuropathy.

Exclusion criteria

Participants were excluded from the study if there was a history of diabetes, lumbosacral radiculopathy, abnormal serum TSH and B12 level, or trauma to the feet. All selected participants had normal neurological examination without any sensory symptoms. Age, weight, height, limb girth, and limb length (midpoint of fibular head to midpoint of lateral malleolus) of all participants were recorded. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg)/height (in m2).

Technique of recording the sural sensory nerve action potential

All nerve conduction tests were done by the same neurophysiologist by using the same protocol. Both sural nerves were sampled. The test was explained in detail to ensure maximum cooperation, and the participant was asked to lie comfortably in a lateral position with the leg to be assessed on top. The recording and stimulating sites were cleaned to reduce skin impedance. Filters were set between 20 Hz and 2 kHz, sweep duration was 20 ms, and sensitivity was 10 μV/divisions. Temperature was recorded at the lateral malleolus and was maintained at 30°C throughout the test. The active recording electrode was placed just behind the upper border of lateral malleolus. The recording site was marked at distances of 10, 12, and 14 cm proximal to the active electrode. Sural SNAP was recorded antidromically stimulating at three sites (14, 12, and 10 cm from the recording electrode).

The ground electrode was placed between the stimulating and recording sites. A supramaximal stimulus was used to obtain the maximum sural SNAP amplitude. Each optimal SNAP was then averaged for at least 6–8 responses to make the onset clear, and two trials were done to confirm the replicability of the response. The latency in milliseconds was measured from the onset of sweep to the onset of negative peak of SNAP waveform. SNAP amplitudes in microvolt were measured from peak to peak.

Statistical analysis

The standard statistical test was applied. The quantitative variables were expressed as Mean ± SD/Median (IQR) and compared using t test/ANOVA. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS version 20.0 software was used for statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis for obtaining reference value was done using mean + 2 SD as described by Robinson et al.[14]. Percentile and quantile regression methods could not be applied due to the sample size in each group being small. Mean + 2SD were taken to define the upper limit of latency. All subjects were divided into six groups based on age (18–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, and 71–80 years).

The data of amplitude obtained was positively skewed. The amplitudes were square-root transformed to bring the data into more Gaussian distribution. The mean − 2SD of the transformed data was calculated and then reconverted into the original unit for the calculation of the lower limit of sural amplitude. ANOVA was applied to calculate the statistical difference in the sural amplitude between six age groups to assess the effect of age on amplitude.

 Results



Two hundred and forty-four patients between ages 18 years to 80 years were included in the study. Mean age of included subjects was 43.28 years. Maximum leg girth was at 14 cm. There was a significant difference in the leg girth at all three sites (P < 0.001). The baseline data and anthropometric parameters of the patients are shown in [Table 1]. Age wise distribution of patients is shown in [Figure 1].{Table 1}{Figure 1}

Sural SNAP onset latency at 14 cm was maximum (2.69 ms) in the 51–60-years age group. Reference data for sural SNAP latency was calculated for each age group at distances of 10, 12, and 14 cm and are shown in [Table 2]. Sural SNAP latency at each stimulating site was compared in different age groups. There was no significant difference between different age groups (P = 0.19).{Table 2}

Sural SNAP amplitude at all three sites was maximum in the 18–30-years age group. The mean amplitude was 17.65, 18.76, and 19.56 microvolt (uv) at a distance of 14, 12, and 10 cm, respectively. Data for sural SNAP peak to peak amplitude and base to peak amplitude was calculated for each age group at a distance of 10, 12, and 14 cm and are shown in [Table 3]A and [Table 3]B.{Table 3}

The data of amplitude obtained was positively skewed and required optimal transformation. The mean − 2SD of the transformed data was calculated and then reconverted into the original unit for the calculation of the lower limit of sural amplitude as shown in [Table 4]. Maximum amplitude was in the 18–30-years age group, and the amplitude was minimum in the 71–80-years age group (4.34 and 2.79, respectively). The difference in the amplitude recorded in the different age groups was found to be statistically different (P < 0.001).{Table 4}

Transformed data for amplitude were analyzed. The difference in the amplitude recorded at each site was found to be statistically different (P < 0.001) as shown in [Table 5]. Linear regression of the transformed data of sural nerve amplitude showed age as the covariate with maximum effect (r2 = 0.35), as shown in [Figure 3].{Table 5}{Figure 3}

 Discussion



The sensory nerve action potential is an important parameter in the evaluation of a patient with suspected peripheral neuropathy.[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] Abnormality of SNAP is primarily determined by comparing amplitude with available reference data. The low amplitude or absent SNAP is a basic abnormality in length-dependent peripheral neuropathy.

A literature search reveals only a few studies for the reference data on sural SNAP in a healthy Indian population.[20] Sural SNAP is also affected by age of the patient. Unavailability of age-matched reference data could lead to a false interpretation of nerve conduction. This can result in false diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy and can lead to multiple unwarranted investigations.

In our study, we stimulated sural nerve at three sites 14, 12, and 10 cm above the active recording electrode in the calf. ANOVA showed a significant difference in the leg girth at all three sites (P < 0.001) [Figure 2]. Stimulation near the recording electrode at 10 cm produces large artifacts and required rotation to optimize the SNAP. Stimulation at 14 cm was technically difficult in short and obese individuals; it requires an increase in stimulation duration. Stimulation at 12 cm from the recording electrode was found to be the most convenient. Multiple international studies have used a distance of 14 or 12 cm from the recording electrodes.[6],[11],[20]{Figure 2}

Previous studies have shown different results about sural SNAP above the age of 60 years with abnormal results of the lower limit of amplitude. Some studies showed values less than zero. We found no subject above age 60 years with a nonrecordable surface sural SNAP. Our results were similar to the study by Horowitch et al.[20] that showed that although amplitude decreases with age, sural response was obtained in all ages (5–90 years).

The amplitude of SNAP decreases with age. Similar results were found in our study. A similar correlation with age has been established in previous studies.[6],[22],[23] Other factors such as weight, height, BMI, leg girth, and limb length did not add significant variation to SNAP amplitude.

The reference value of sural SNAP amplitude in our study is comparable to the results obtained by Horowitz & Esper et al.[20],[23] In this study, we used the Mean − 2SD method after transforming the skewed data as suggested by Robinson et al.[14] A similar method for transformation was used by Aarthika et al. Some studies used the percentile method to obtain sural SNAP amplitude. The number of subjects in each group was inadequate for the reliable application of the percentile method. Most of the subjects in our study were from western India; thus, the study population was from a limited geographical area.

 Conclusion



This is the first study with a large sample size (244 subjects) to provide age-stratified reference data for SNAP in the Indian population by using three sites of stimulation at distances of 14, 12, and 10 cm from the recording electrode. This study shows that sural SNAP amplitude varies with the age of the subject and distance from stimulation. Thus, a single cut-off value for sural SNAP without age and site of stimulation consideration may lead to wrong conclusions. Further studies with a large sample size in each age group are required for age-specific reference value of SNAP amplitudes.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References
1Singleton JR, Bixby B, Russell JW, Feldman EL, Peltier A, Goldstein J, et al. The Utah early neuropathy scale: A sensitive clinical scale for early sensory predominant neuropathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2008;13:218-27.
2Oh SJ, Demirci M, Dajani B, Melo AC, Claussen GC. Distal sensory nerve conduction of thesuperficial peroneal nerve: New method and its clinical application. Muscle Nerve 2001;24:689-94.
3Park KS, Lee SH, Lee KW, Oh SJ. Interdigital nerve conduction study of the foot for an early detection of diabetic sensory polyneuropathy. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114:894-7.
4Singleton JR. Evaluation and treatment of painful peripheral polyneuropathy. Semin Neurol 2005;25:185-95.
5Rivner MH, Swift TR, Malik K. Influence of age and height on nerve conduction. Muscle Nerve 2001;24:1134-41.
6Tavee JO, Polston D, Zhou L, Shields RW, Butler RS, Levin KH. Sural sensory nerve action potential, epidermal nerve fiber density, and quantitative sudomotor axon reflex in the healthy elderly. Muscle Nerve 2014;49:564-9.
7Jagga M, Lehri A, Verma SK. Effect of aging and anthropometric measurements on nerve conduction properties-A review. JESP 2011;7:1-10.
8Robinson LR, Rubner DE, Wahl PW, Fujimoto WY, Stolov WC. Influences of height and gender on normal nerve conduction studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:1134-8.
9McKnight J, Nicholls PG, Loretta D, Desikan KV, Lockwood DN, Wilder-Smith EP, et al. Reference values for nerve function assessments among a study population in northern India-III: Sensory and motornerve conduction. Neurology Asia 2010;15:39-54.
10Shahabuddin S, Badar DS, Moizuddin KM, Sami LB, Solepure AB. Normative values for nerve conduction study among healthy subjects from Aurangabad, India. IJRTSAT 2013;8:56-61.
11Buschbacher RM. Sural and saphenous 14-cm antidromic sensory nerve conduction studies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82:421-6.
12Kokotis P, Mandellos D, Papagianni A, Karandreas N. Nomogram for determining lower limit of the sural response. Clin Neurophysiol 2010;121:561-3.
13Sreenivasan A, Mansukhani KA, Sharma A, Balakrishnan L. Sural sensory nerve action potential: A study in healthy Indian subjects. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2016;19:312-7.
14Robinson LR, Temkin NR, Fujimoto WY, Stolov WC. Effect of statistical methodology on normal limits in nerve conduction studies. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:1084-90.
15Donofrio PD, Albers JW. AAEM minimonograph #34: Polyneuropathy: Classification by nerve conduction studies and electromyography. Muscle Nerve 1990;13:889-903.
16Cornblath DR. Diabetic neuropathy: Diagnostic methods. Adv Stud Med 2004;4:S650-61.
17D'Amour ML, Shahani BT, Young RR, Bird KT. The importance of studying sural nerve conductionand late responses in the evaluation of alcoholic subjects. Neurology 1979;29:1600-4.
18Vrancken, AF, Notermans NC, Wokke JH, Franssen H. The realistic yield of lower leg SNAP amplitudes and SRAR in the routine evaluation of chronic axonal polyneuropathies. J Neurology 2008;255:1127-35.
19Benatar M, Wuu J, Peng L. Reference data for commonly used sensory and motor nerve conduction studies. Muscle Nerve 2009;40:772-94.
20Horowitz SH, Krarup C. Conduction studies of the normal sural nerve. Muscle Nerve 1992;15:374-83.
21Stetson DS, Albers JW, Silverstein BA, Wolfe RA. Effects of age, sex, and anthropometric factors on nerve conduction measures. Muscle Nerve 1992;15:1095-104.
22Falco FJ, Hennessey WJ, Goldberg G, Braddom RL. Standardized nerve conduction studies in the lower limb of the healthy elderly. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:168-74.
23Esper GJ, Nardin RA, Benatar M, Sax TW, Acosta JA, Raynor EM. Sural and radial sensory responses in healthy adults: Diagnostic implications for polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 2005;31:628-32.