Electrophysiological characteristics and anatomical differentiation of epileptic and non-epileptic myoclonus

Abstract Background Electrophysiological techniques have been used for discriminating myoclonus from other hyperkinetic movement disorders and for classifying the myoclonus subtype. This study was carried out on patients with different subtypes of myoclonus to determine the electrophysiological char...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohammad Abu-Hegazy, Azza Elmoungi, Eman Eltantawi, Ahmed Esmael
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2021-09-01
Series:The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery
Subjects:
EEG
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-021-00374-5
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Electrophysiological techniques have been used for discriminating myoclonus from other hyperkinetic movement disorders and for classifying the myoclonus subtype. This study was carried out on patients with different subtypes of myoclonus to determine the electrophysiological characteristics and the anatomical classification of myoclonus of different etiologies. This study included 20 patients with different subtypes of myoclonus compared with 30 control participants. Electrophysiological study was carried out for all patients by somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and electroencephalography (EEG) while the control group underwent SSEP. SSEP was evaluated in patients and control groups by stimulation of right and left median nerves. Results This study included 50 cases with myoclonus of different causes with mean age of 39.3 ± 15.7 and consisted of 23 males and 27 females. Twenty-nine (58%) of the patients were epileptics, while 21 (42%) were non-epileptics. Cases were classified anatomically into ten cases with cortical myoclonus (20%), 12 cases with subcortical myoclonus (24%), and 28 cases with cortical–subcortical myoclonus (56%). There was a significant difference regarding the presence of EEG findings in epileptic myoclonic and non-epileptic myoclonic groups (P = 0.005). Also, there were significant differences regarding P24 amplitude, N33 amplitude, P24–N33 peak-to-peak complex amplitude regarding all types of myoclonus. Primary myoclonic epilepsy (PME) demonstrated significant giant response, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) demonstrated no enhancement compared to controls, while secondary myoclonus demonstrated lower giant response compared to PME. Conclusion Somatosensory evoked potential and electroencephalography are important for the diagnosis and anatomical sub-classification of myoclonus and so may help in decision-making regarding to the subsequent management.
ISSN:1687-8329