Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery 1/2024

Open Access 01.12.2024 | Research

Electrophysiological studies versus high-resolution nerve ultrasound in diagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome

verfasst von: Ahmed Abou Hagar, Mohamed Negm, Samer Elshamly, Osama Shehab, Walid Mosallam, Reda Abd El-Razek

Erschienen in: The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery | Ausgabe 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is polyneuropathy characterized by inflammation and immune-mediated processes that is classified into many subtypes based on electrophysiological and pathological criteria. The diagnosis of GBS can be confirmed using electrophysiological studies. However, electrophysiological studies may be normal when carried out early within 1 week in the course of the disease (Berciano et al. in J Neurol 264:221–236, 2017). One of the most useful imaging modalities for peripheral nerve diseases is ultrasonography (US). Nerve US in combination with electrophysiological studies provides an appropriate method in evaluating diseased peripheral nerves. This study aimed to enhance the reliability of early GBS diagnosis by correlating the findings of electrophysiological studies and nerve ultrasound. The nerve conduction studies (NCSs) in 37 GBS patients and 37 controls combined with cross-sectional area (CSA) assessment with US within the first 3 days of onset of symptoms and on day 14 after disease onset were evaluated.

Results

At presentation, patients and controls did not differ significantly in NCS parameters (p ≥ 0.05) except for a significantly longer F-wave minimum latency in the median, ulnar, and tibial nerves in patients (p < 0.001). While on day 14 all NCS parameters differed significantly in patients in comparison to controls (p < 0.001) with exception of the sural nerve parameters (p ≥ 0.05). Except for the sural nerve (p ≥ 0.05), all the examined nerves' CSAs were considerably higher in patients at presentation and on day 14 in comparison to the controls (p < 0.001). The subtypes of Guillain–Barré syndrome either demyelinating, axonal or mixed axonal and demyelinating did not significantly differ regarding the CSAs of all the examined nerves either at presentation or on day 14 (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Electrophysiological results in GBS are crucial in diagnosing the disease and understanding its pathophysiology, but serial NCSs are required. Ultrasound shows structural aspects of the nerve, so ultrasonography is a reliable tool which can be used in diagnosis and follow-up of early GBS. As a result, combining the two investigations has a complementary effect in the diagnosis and prognosis of GBS.
Hinweise

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
CIDP
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy
CMAP
Compound muscle action potential
CSA
Cross-sectional area
CSF
Cerebrospinal fluid
CV
Conduction velocity
DML
Distal motor latency
EMG
Electromyography
GBS
Guillain–Barré syndrome
Hz
Hertz
kHz
Kilohertz
MHz
Megahertz
mm2
Millimeter square
ms
Millisecond
mV
Millivolt
m/s
Meter per second
mg/dL
Milligram per deciliter
mL
Milliliter
MCV
Motor conduction velocity
NCS
Nerve conduction studies
PL
Peak latency
SCV
Sensory conduction velocity
SNAP
Sensory nerve action potential
US
Ultrasonography

Introduction

Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is polyneuropathy characterized by inflammation and immune-mediated processes with an abrupt onset that is classified into many subtypes based on electrophysiological and pathological criteria [1]. The diagnosis of GBS can be confirmed using electrophysiological studies, which can also provide some prognostic information. Furthermore, they can differentiate between the axonal and demyelinating subtype of GBS [2]. However, electrophysiological studies may be normal when carried out early within 1 week in the course of the disease, or in cases presented at early stages with proximal weakness, mild disease, slow development [3]. One of the most useful imaging modalities for peripheral nerve diseases is ultrasonography (US) because it is cheap, non-invasive, with great contrast resolution, and the ability to examine the whole course of the major peripheral nerves [46]. There has been an increase in research in recent years of peripheral nerve US in different neuropathies as GBS. Nerve US in combination with electrophysiological studies provides an appropriate method in evaluating diseased peripheral nerves. The cross-sectional area (CSA) changes, echogenicity, and surrounding epineurium are seen in the US of diseased nerves [7]. This study aimed to enhance the reliability of early GBS diagnosis by correlating the findings of electrophysiological studies and nerve ultrasound.

Methods

A case control study conducted in the Neurology and Diagnostic Radiology departments. The study took place from October 2017 to March 2021.
Thirty-seven adult patients of both genders, aged ≥ 18 years complaining of clinical manifestation suggestive of GBS as acute weakness in both upper and lower limbs, reduced or absent deep tendon reflexes, progression from days to four weeks with relative symmetry of clinical presentation, minor sensory symptoms, autonomic symptoms, or signs were involved.
Patients with spinal nerve root compression, intracranial or spinal cord lesions, a history of GBS or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), medication-induced neuropathy, a hereditary neuromuscular disorder, any systemic disease affecting the peripheral nerves, such as diabetes mellitus, uremia, or chronic liver disease and critical care unit patients on mechanical ventilation were excluded. Another 37 healthy controls with similar age and sex were also included. All participants submitted informed written consent before participating in the study, which was authorized by the faculty of medicine ethical committee.
The following procedures were performed on all patients:
A complete history was taken, as well as a detailed general and neurological examination. Hughes-Score (HS) [8] at presentation and on day 14 was used to assess the functional status of patients. Lumbar puncture for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis for confirmation of GBS and findings are conclusive when CSF cell count less than 50/mL and CSF protein concentration higher than 60 mg/dL [9].
A clinical neurophysiologist with expertise in electrophysiology conducted a standardized electrophysiological study using a Neuropak Model MEB-2300k (Nihon Kohden Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 2012) electromyography machine. All studies were performed by the same examiner. The study was performed as described by Preston and Shapiro [10]. It was carried out at presentation within 3 days of onset of symptoms and then repeated on day 14 from onset of disease. The subject was kept in a supine posture with a skin temperature greater than 32 ºC for all recordings. The motor and sensory studies used filters with frequency ranges of 10 Hz to 5 kHz and 20 Hz to 2 kHz, respectively.
Median, ulnar, and tibial motor nerves were tested for distal motor latency (DML), compound muscle action potential (CMAP), and motor conduction velocity (MCV). The median, ulnar, and sural sensory nerves were tested for peak latency (PL), sensory nerve action potential (SNAP), and sensory conduction velocity (SCV) were evaluated. F-wave latencies (FL) were measured in the median, ulnar, and tibial nerves to assess the proximal nerve segments. All nerve conduction studies (NCSs) followed the standard protocol of supramaximal percutaneous stimulation with a constant-current stimulator and surface electrode recording. The electrophysiological criteria described by Preston and Shapiro [11] were applied for diagnosis of GBS. The Brighton criteria [9] were applied in GBS diagnosis.
Real-time high-resolution ultrasonography was carried out for the selected nerves with a linear probe (5–17 MHz) from a Philips IU22 machine (Philips Ultrasound 22,100 Bothell-Everett Highway; Philips Healthcare, Bothell, Washington, USA). It was carried out by a specialized Diagnostic Radiologist at presentation within 3 days of onset of symptoms and then repeated on day 14 from onset of disease. The clinical and electrophysiologic findings were kept hidden from the sonographer, and all scans were done by the same examiner.
The subjects were examined in supine positions. To see the nerve, the B mode was utilized, and the scanning depth remained constant at 3 cm (cm), but the focus was varied individually.
The probe was gently held over the skin to avoid nerve deformation, and the transducer was oriented perpendicular to the nerve to get the most clear and small CSA image. The color Doppler mode was utilized to distinguish arteries, veins, and nerve bundles. The CSA was then determined in square millimeters (mm2) by direct tracing just inside the nerve's hyperechogenic rim in perpendicular planes with a tracing method measured. If more than one bundle was visible, the structures were traced together with as little connective tissue as possible in between. The CSAs of the following nerves were measured at defined anatomical sites: the sural nerve was measured between the medial and lateral heads of the gastrocnemius muscle, the tibial nerve was measured at the popliteal fossa, the median nerve was measured at the upper arm, the forearm, and the wrist, and the ulnar nerve was measured at the upper arm and the wrist [1214]. The controls were subjected to electrophysiological studies and nerve ultrasound.

Statistical analysis

We used IBM SPSS software version 20.0 to analyze the data after it was imported into the computer. Armonk, New York, IBM Corporation. To express categorical variables, numbers and percentages were applied. To analyze the association between category variables, the Chi-square test was applied. Continuous variables were verified for normality via the Shapiro–Wilk test. Statistics such as the mean, standard deviation, median, and range (minimum and maximum) were developed to represent distributed variables. Comparisons of normally distributed quantitative variables were made by means of the Student’s t-test, and comparisons of the two time periods were made using the paired t-test. To compare the two time periods, we applied the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. For quantitative variables that did not follow a normal distribution, we applied the Mann–Whitney test to compare the two groups. At the 5% level, the results were considered significant.

Results

This study included 74 people divided into two groups, each with 37 subjects. The first group included GBS patients, and the controls were the second group; the demographic and clinical data of both groups are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
Demographic data among patients and controls
 
Control
(n = 37)
Patients
(n = 37)
Test of Sig.
p
Sex
 Male
21 (56.8%)
26 (70.3%)
χ2 = 1.458
0.227
 Female
16 (43.2%)
11 (29.7%)
Age (years)
 Mean ± SD
32.7 ± 7.99
34.4 ± 9.39
t = 0.867
0.389
 Median (Min.–Max.)
33 (19–50)
35 (19–52)
Weight (kilogram)
 Mean ± SD
85 ± 10.7
84.4 ± 11.3
t = 0.265
0.792
 Median (Min.–Max.)
85 (66–109)
84 (68–110)
Height (centimeter)
 Mean ± SD
170.9 ± 4.19
171.7 ± 4.66
t = 0.787
0.434
 Median (Min.–Max.)
170 (160–183)
170 (162–185)
Body mass index
 Mean ± SD
29.1 ± 3.26
28.6 ± 3.40
t = 0.655
0.515
 Median (Min.–Max.)
28.7 (22.8–38.2)
28.4 (23.5–38.5)
SD standard deviation, Min.–Max minimum–maximum, t: Student’s t-test, χ2 Chi-square test, p p value
Table 2
Clinical data among patients (n = 37)
Clinical data
No. (%)
Preceding infection
 No
11 (29.7%)
 Gastrointestinal
10 (27.0%)
 Respiratory
16 (43.2%)
Clinical presentation
 Motor
10 (27%)
 Motor and sensory
27 (73%)
Cranial nerve
 No
17 (45.9%)
 Facial
7 (18.9%)
 Bulbar
5 (13.5%)
 Facial and bulbar
8 (21.6%)
Autonomic symptoms
 No
29 (78.4%)
 Yes
8 (21.6%)
Hughes-Score (HS) at presentation and (on day 14)
 
HS 0 n = 0 (n = 0)
HS 1 n = 2 (n = 1)
HS 2 n = 4 (n = 2)
HS 3 n = 10 (n = 14)
HS 4 n = 21 (n = 20)
Guillain–Barré syndrome subtype
 Demyelinating
22 (59.5%)
 Axonal
4 (10.8%)
 Mixed axonal and demyelinating
11 (29.7%)
Treatment
 Intravenous immunoglobulins
37 (100%)
 Plasmapheresis
0 (0%)
The results of electrophysiological studies and nerve ultrasonography of the right side were only presented.
At presentation, patients and controls did not differ significantly in NCS parameters (p ≥ 0.05) except for a significantly longer F-wave minimum latency in the median, ulnar, and tibial nerves in patients (p < 0.001). While on day 14 all NCS parameters differed significantly in patients in comparison to controls (p < 0.001) with exception of the sural nerve parameters (p ≥ 0.05) (Table 3).
Table 3
Nerve conduction study parameters among patients and controls
 
Control
(n = 37)
Patients
P1
P2
P3
At presentation (n = 37)
On day 14
(n = 37)
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Median
 DML (ms)
3.77 ± 0.25
3.82 ± 0.25
6.10 ± 1.79
Up1 = 0.376
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 CMAP (mV)
9.40 ± 3.09
8.97 ± 2.74
4.46 ± 2.01
Up1 = 0.642
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 MCV(m/s)
58.2 ± 6.20
56.9 ± 6.24
36.6 ± 11
Up1 = 0.341
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 F-wave latency (ms)
27.5 ± 1.89
36.7 ± 3.78
38.3 ± 4.22
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 = 0.003*
 PL (ms)
2.94 ± 0.31
3.02 ± 0.32
4.59 ± 1.37
Up1 = 0.242
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 SNAP (µV)
32 ± 4.65
30.9 ± 4.51
16.4 ± 5.06
Up1 = 0.393
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 SCV(m/s)
59 ± 7.91
57.1 ± 7.38
35.9 ± 7.67
Up1 = 0.239,
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
Ulnar
 DML (ms)
2.78 ± 0.27
2.89 ± 0.24
5.32 ± 2.12
Up1 = 0.090
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 CMAP (mV)
9.76 ± 2.43
8.95 ± 1.51
5.51 ± 1.59
Up1 = 0.258
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 MCV (m/s)
57.5 ± 5.81
55.9 ± 5.67
36.4 ± 10.8
Up1 = 0.211
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 F-wave latency (ms)
28.0 ± 1.93
36.5 ± 3.47
38.9 ± 4.38
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 PL (ms)
2.69 ± 0.23
2.83 ± 0.35
4.32 ± 1.15
Up1 = 0.126
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 SNAP (µV)
32.9 ± 6.41
32.7 ± 6.08
15.8 ± 5.65
Up1 = 0.880
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 SCV (m/s)
58.2 ± 7.14
56.2 ± 4.57
36 ± 7.29
Up1 = 0.214
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
Tibial
 DML (ms)
4.40 ± 0.58
4.56 ± 0.55
7.09 ± 1.62
Up1 = 0.147
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 CMAP (mV)
9.64 ± 5.35
8.58 ± 4.07
4.31 ± 1.45
tp1 = 0.343
tp2 < 0.001*
t1p3 < 0.001*
 MCV(m/s)
48.8 ± 3.22
47.2 ± 3.75
32.97 ± 7.98
Up1 = 0.030*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
 F-wave latency (ms)
48.5 ± 2.95
58.3 ± 3.79
59.6 ± 4.11
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 = 0.070
Sural
 PL (ms)
3.57 ± 0.35
3.66 ± 0.36
3.71 ± 0.34
Up1 = 0.255
Up2 = 0.07
Zp3 = 0.43
 SNAP (µV)
12.3 ± 4.21
11.7 ± 3.59
11.35 ± 2.9
Up1 = 0.614
Up2 = 0.268
Zp3 = 0.626
 SCV(m/s)
53.4 ± 5.46
52.6 ± 4.93
51.8 ± 4.74
Up1 = 0.473
Up2 = 0.151
Zp3 = 0.083
SD standard deviation, U Mann–Whitney test, Z Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p1 p value for comparing between the patients at presentation and controls, p2 p value for comparing between the patients on day 14 and controls, p3 p value for comparing between the patients at presentation and on day 14, DML distal motor latency, CMAP compound muscle action potential, MCV motor conduction velocity, PL peak latency, SNAP sensory nerve action potential, SCV sensory conduction velocity, ms millisecond, mV millivolt, m/s meter per second, µV microvolt
*Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
Except for the sural nerve (p ≥ 0.05), all the examined nerves' CSAs were considerably higher in patients at presentation and on day 14 in comparison to the controls (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
Table 4
Nerve cross-sectional area among patients and control
Cross-sectional area
(mm2)
Controls
(n = 37)
Patients
P1
P2
P3
At presentation
(n = 37)
On day 14
(n = 37)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Median nerve
 Wrist
4.74 ± 0.54
4.90 (4.0–5.90)
5.92 ± 0.90
6 (4.50–8.50)
6.02 ± 0.94
6 (4.50–8.50)
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 = 0.102
 Forearm
6.17 ± 1.27
5.90 (4–9.30)
8.04 ± 0.96
7.90 (6.70–10.70)
8.40 ± 1.11
8.10 (6.70–10.7)
tp1 < 0.001*
tp2 < 0.001*
t1p3 = 0.010*
 Upper arm
6.58 ± 0.84
6.40 (5.50–8.50)
8.85 ± 0.55
9 (7.90–9.80)
8.74 ± 0.53
8.80 (7.90–9.80)
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 = 0.046*
Ulnar nerve
 Wrist
3.54 ± 0.59
3.60 (2.90–5)
5.26 ± 0.99
4.90 (3.80–7.80)
5.50 ± 0.86
5.50 (4.50–7.80)
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 = 0.034*
 Upper arm
5.16 ± 0.67
5 (4–6.50)
7.05 ± 1.99
6.10 (4.90–11)
7.70 ± 2.01
7.90 (4.90–11)
Up1 < 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 = 0.015*
Tibial nerve at popliteal fossa
20.9 ± 2.31
21.1 (16.8–25.2)
27.4 ± 4.20
25.8 (20.9–30.9)
28 ± 2.37
28.8 (22.7–33.5)
Up1 = 0.001*
Up2 < 0.001*
Zp3 < 0.001*
Sural nerve at calf
2.24 ± 0.40
2.30 (1.60–3)
2.32 ± 0.37
2.4(1.8– 3.2)
2.40 ± 0.38
2.3 (1.9–3.5)
Up1 < 0.32
Up2 < 0.62
Zp3 = 0.35
SD standard deviation, t Student’s t-test, t1 paired t-test, U Mann–Whitney test, Z Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p1 p value for comparing between the patients at presentation and controls, p2 p value for comparing between the patients on day 14 and controls, p3 p value for comparing between the patients at presentation and on day14, mm2 square millimeter
*Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05
The subtypes of Guillain–Barré syndrome either demyelinating, axonal or mixed axonal and demyelinating did not significantly differ regarding the CSAs of all the examined nerves either at presentation or on day 14 (p > 0.05) (Tables 5, 6).
Table 5
Relation between Guillain–Barré syndrome subtype and nerve cross-sectional area at presentation among patients (n = 37)
Cross-sectional area
(mm2)
Guillain–Barré syndrome subtype
Test of sig.
p
Demyelinating
(n = 22)
Axonal
(n = 4)
Mixed
(n = 11)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Median nerve
 Wrist
5.9 ± 0.9
6.0 (4.5–8.5)
6.1 ± 1.1
6.1 (4.7–7.5)
5.9 ± 0.8
5.9 (4.9–7.5)
H = 0.306
0.858
 Forearm
8.2 ± 1.0
8.0 (7.0–10.7)
7.6 ± 0.8
7.6 (6.9–8.5)
7.8 ± 0.8
7.9 (6.7–9.8)
F = 1.063
0.357
 Upper arm
8.8 ± 0.5
9.0 (7.9–9.8)
8.9 ± 0.1
8.9 (8.7–9.0)
8.9 ± 0.7
9.0 (8.0–9.8)
H = 0.301
0.860
Ulnar nerve
 Wrist
5.4 ± 1.1
5.5 (3.8–7.8)
4.8 ± 0.5
4.6 (4.5–5.6)
5.1 ± 0.8
4.9 (3.9–6.8)
H = 1.439
0.487
 Upper arm
7.1 ± 1.9
6.1 (5.0–10.6)
5.7 ± 0.6
5.9 (4.9–6.2)
7.4 ± 2.3
6.2 (5.0–11.0)
H = 2.495
0.287
Tibial nerve at popliteal fossa
28.14 ± 4.1
26.4 (20.9–33.9)
25.07 ± 2.59
24.15 (23–28.9)
26.8 ± 4.7
23.9 (21.9–33.6)
F = 1.07
0.353
Sural nerve at calf
2.31 ± 0.36
2.35 (1.8–3.2)
2.27 ± 0.37
2.3 (1.8–2.7)
2.37 ± 0.42
2.3 (1.8–3)
F = 0.128
0.88
SD standard deviation, p p value, mm2 square millimeter, F F for one-way ANOVA test, H H for Kruskal–Wallis test
Table 6
Relation between Guillain–Barré syndrome subtype and nerve cross-sectional area on day 14 among patients (n = 37)
Cross-sectional area
(mm2)
Guillain–Barré syndrome subtype
Test of sig.
p
Demyelinating
(n = 22)
Axonal
(n = 4)
Mixed
(n = 11)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Mean ± SD
Median (Min.–Max.)
Median nerve
 Wrist
6.0 ± 1.0
6.0 (4.5–8.5)
6.1 ± 1.1
6.1 (4.7–7.5)
6.0 ± 0.9
5.9 (4.9–7.5)
H = 0.153
0.927
 Forearm
8.6 ± 1.1
8.1 (7.5–10.7)
8.4 ± 1.3
8.3 (6.9–10.0)
8.0 ± 1.0
7.9 (6.7–10.0)
F = 1.025
0.370
 Upper arm
8.7 ± 0.5
8.8 (7.9–9.8)
8.9 ± 0.1
8.9 (8.7–9.0)
8.8 ± 0.6
8.8 (8.0–9.8)
H = 0.308
0.857
Ulnar nerve
 Wrist
5.7 ± 0.9
5.8 (4.5–7.8)
4.8 ± 0.5
4.6 (4.5–5.6)
5.3 ± 0.7
5.2 (4.5–6.8)
H = 4.350
0.114
 Upper arm
7.5 ± 2.0
6.4 (5.0–10.6)
6.5 ± 1.8
6.0 (4.9–9.0)
8.6 ± 1.9
9.0 (5.0–11.0)
H = 4.379
0.112
Tibial nerve at popliteal fossa
28.3 ± 2.4
28.9 (22.7–33.5)
28.0 ± 2.1
29.0 (24.9–29.2)
27.5 ± 2.5
26.9 (24.7–31.5)
H = 0.306
0.858
Sural nerve at calf
2.3 ± 0.38
2.3 (1.9–3.5)
2.2 ± 0.21
2.2 (1.9–2.4)
2.5 ± 0.37
2.5(1.9–3)
F = 1.05
0.361
SD standard deviation, p p value, mm2 square millimeter, F F for one-way ANOVA test, H H for Kruskal–Wallis test

Discussion

In this study, the NCSs in 37 GBS patients combined with US at 2 time-points: within the first 3 days of onset of symptoms and on day 14 after disease onset were evaluated.
In our study, males (70.3%) had a higher prevalence of GBS than females (29.7%). Our result agreed with Parmar and V Doshi [15] who showed male predominance (76%) compared to females (24%). Also Dash his colleagues [16] showed male predominance and in contrast to our study; Khan and his colleagues [17] found GBS to be equally frequent in men and women, which could be explained by variations in sample size and methodology.
The patients and controls did not significantly differ in terms of NCS parameters at time of onset of GBS, except for a prolonged F-wave minimum latency. This agreed with Alberti and colleagues [18] who found that F-wave examination is a preliminary examination in patients with GBS to establish the early diagnosis, and with Mizuguchi and colleagues [19] who demonstrated that abnormalities of nerve conduction examination in the first week will usually be found with abnormal F-waves. Other studies have found that the F-wave is either delayed or absent in 80–90% of AIDP patients due to the early affection of the proximal nerve segments and spinal roots [20, 21].
Regarding the ultrasound, our study showed that all sensorimotor nerve CSAs in patients were considerably larger at disease onset when compared to controls, however, the structure of the sural nerve which is totally sensory nerve did not change considerably, which could be the ultrasonography equivalent of the sural sparing finding in NCSs [22].
In acute GBS the cause of the focal enlargement of the nerves is unknown, however it could be the ultrasonography association of swelling of the nerve sheath due to focal inflammatory edema of demyelination, as evidenced by histopathology [14, 23].
This study showed that swelling of the nerves occurred in places other than the typical entrapment locations, such as the ulnar nerve in the upper arm, the popliteal nerve in the popliteal fossa, and the median nerve in the middle of the arm. These results were consistent with those of other studies [23, 24].
On day 14 from onset of disease, our result showed the patients had marked reduction of CMAP, prolonged DML, reduction of motor CV and prolonged F-wave in upper and lower limb studded nerves except for the sural nerve parameters in comparison to controls. This agreed with Preston and Shapiro [11] who shown that, while more than ninety percent of patients will experience motor NCS abnormalities within the first weeks, considerably smaller number will experience sensory NCS abnormalities. Typically, sensory studies are intact in the early stages of GBS. But after one or two weeks they reveal sural sparing that is sensory response of the sural nerve is intact, while sensory responses of median and ulnar nerves are diminished or absent. These findings also agreed with previous studies which showed prolonged F-wave latency in early GBS especially in median and ulnar nerves but when we repeated NCS after 2 weeks there were significant changes in DML, CMAP and MCV of different nerves [3, 25].
In our study, we noticed that CSAs of examined nerves still enlarged when measured on day 14 in both distal and proximal portions of nerves. This finding agreed with Sugimoto and colleagues [26] who showed that the CSAs of the proximal and distal segments were almost identical. [14, 23] discovered that the median and ulnar nerves CSAs were significantly reduced between the first eight weeks and after 12 weeks, but if we follow our patients longer maybe we yield these results.
We found no statistical difference between subtypes of Guillain–Barré syndrome at onset or on day 14. In contrast to a prior study, the authors discovered that axonal subtypes exhibited lower CSAs at certain nerve locations than demyelinating subtypes [27]. Also [28, 29] found that nerve enlargement detected by US is much more pronounced in demyelinating than in axonal polyneuropathies.
Wallerian degeneration caused axonal affection of the peripheral nerves corresponding to reduction of CMAP amplitude in our study could be another cause of nerve hypertrophy. Axonopathy may result in hypertrophy of nerve fascicles, a remodeling cascade as previously explored in sarcoid neuropathy [30], which, in addition to remyelination, could be another cause of nerve hypertrophy [31], and beside edema and inflammation [13, 14].
From the above finding, we noticed that nerve ultrasound was highly positive in comparison to electrophysiological studies in early GBS manifested by enlarged CSAs in almost all studied nerves in contrast to electrophysiological studies which manifested by prolonged F-wave latency only which also could be normal so we concluded that nerve ultrasound could be an alternative reliable diagnostic tool in early GBS.
This study has some limitations; only four individuals with GBS axonal variant were included, making a reliable comparison with demyelinating variant impossible. Another limitation was the short observation period; so, we cannot expect if ultrasound improvement in the enlarged verves happens before clinical improvement or vice versa based on our data. Finally, this study could not have included any individuals admitted to ICU who had a poor recovery, as a result, the findings must be cautiously interpreted. Consequently, to investigate the progression of nerve hypertrophy in GBS, large multicenter trials with short observation periods are required.

Conclusion

Electrophysiological results in GBS are crucial not only in diagnosing the disease, but also in understanding its pathophysiology and assessing the nerve function but serial NCSs are required since the outcomes of the condition alter significantly over time. Ultrasound shows structural aspects of the nerve such as the nerve fascicles, echogenicity, and vascularity, so ultrasonography is a reliable tool which can be used in diagnosis and follow-up of early GBS. As a result, combining the two investigations has a complementary effect in the diagnosis and prognosis of GBS.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

The study was approved by the Ethics committee of Suez Canal Faculty of medicine on October 18, 2017. Committee Number: 3249. An informed written consent was taken from all the participants in the study.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests (financial or non-financial).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Willison HJ, Jacobs BC, van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barre syndrome. The Lancet. 2016;388(10045):717–27.CrossRef Willison HJ, Jacobs BC, van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barre syndrome. The Lancet. 2016;388(10045):717–27.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Willison HJ, Jacobs BC, van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barré syndrome: surveillance and cost of treatment strategies—Authors’ reply. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):253–4.CrossRefPubMed Willison HJ, Jacobs BC, van Doorn PA. Guillain-Barré syndrome: surveillance and cost of treatment strategies—Authors’ reply. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):253–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Berciano J, Sedano MJ, Pelayo-Negro AL, García A, Orizaola P, Gallardo E, et al. Proximal nerve lesions in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: implications for pathogenesis and disease classification. J Neurol. 2017;264(2):221–36.CrossRefPubMed Berciano J, Sedano MJ, Pelayo-Negro AL, García A, Orizaola P, Gallardo E, et al. Proximal nerve lesions in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: implications for pathogenesis and disease classification. J Neurol. 2017;264(2):221–36.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Goedee H, Brekelmans G, Van Asseldonk J, Beekman R, Mess W, Visser L. High resolution sonography in the evaluation of the peripheral nervous system in polyneuropathy-a review of the literature. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20(10):1342–51.CrossRefPubMed Goedee H, Brekelmans G, Van Asseldonk J, Beekman R, Mess W, Visser L. High resolution sonography in the evaluation of the peripheral nervous system in polyneuropathy-a review of the literature. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20(10):1342–51.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Hobson-Webb LD. Neuromuscular ultrasound in polyneuropathies and motor neuron disease: US of neuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 2013;47(6):790–804.CrossRefPubMed Hobson-Webb LD. Neuromuscular ultrasound in polyneuropathies and motor neuron disease: US of neuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 2013;47(6):790–804.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Im Suk J, Walker FO, Cartwright MS. Ultrasonography of peripheral nerves. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013;13(2):1–9. Im Suk J, Walker FO, Cartwright MS. Ultrasonography of peripheral nerves. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013;13(2):1–9.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallardo E, Noto Y-I, Simon NG. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy: structure meets function in the neuromuscular clinic. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;86(10):1066–74.CrossRefPubMed Gallardo E, Noto Y-I, Simon NG. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy: structure meets function in the neuromuscular clinic. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;86(10):1066–74.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Hughes RA, Rees JH. Clinical and epidemiologic features of Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Infect Dis. 1997;176(Suppl 2):S92–8.CrossRefPubMed Hughes RA, Rees JH. Clinical and epidemiologic features of Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Infect Dis. 1997;176(Suppl 2):S92–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Fokke C, van den Berg B, Drenthen J, Walgaard C, van Doorn PA, Jacobs BC. Diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome and validation of Brighton criteria. Brain. 2014;137(Pt 1):33–43.CrossRefPubMed Fokke C, van den Berg B, Drenthen J, Walgaard C, van Doorn PA, Jacobs BC. Diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome and validation of Brighton criteria. Brain. 2014;137(Pt 1):33–43.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Basic nerve conduction studies. In: Cuccurullo S, editor. Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013. p. 43–83. Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Basic nerve conduction studies. In: Cuccurullo S, editor. Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013. p. 43–83.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013. p. 490–524. Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013. p. 490–524.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Grimm A, Heiling B, Schumacher U, Witte OW, Axer H. Ultrasound differentiation of axonal and demyelinating neuropathies. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50:976–83.CrossRefPubMed Grimm A, Heiling B, Schumacher U, Witte OW, Axer H. Ultrasound differentiation of axonal and demyelinating neuropathies. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50:976–83.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Grimm A, Décard BF, Bischof A, Axer H. Ultrasound of the peripheral nerves in systemic vasculitic neuropathies. J Neurol Sci. 2014;347(1–2):44–9.CrossRefPubMed Grimm A, Décard BF, Bischof A, Axer H. Ultrasound of the peripheral nerves in systemic vasculitic neuropathies. J Neurol Sci. 2014;347(1–2):44–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Grimm A, Decard B, Axer H. Ultrasonography of the peripheral nerve system in the early stage of Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2014;19:234–41.CrossRefPubMed Grimm A, Decard B, Axer H. Ultrasonography of the peripheral nerve system in the early stage of Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2014;19:234–41.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Parmar L, Vdoshi S. Nerve conduction studies in Guillian Barre syndrome. Neurology. 2013;16(1):1–4. Parmar L, Vdoshi S. Nerve conduction studies in Guillian Barre syndrome. Neurology. 2013;16(1):1–4.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Dash S, Pai AR, Kamath U, Rao P. Pathophysiology, and diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome-challenges and needs. Int J Neurosci. 2015;125(4):235–40.CrossRefPubMed Dash S, Pai AR, Kamath U, Rao P. Pathophysiology, and diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome-challenges and needs. Int J Neurosci. 2015;125(4):235–40.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Khan F, Stevermuer TL, Simmonds FD. Rehabilitation for Guillain Barre syndrome: analysis of the Australian rehabilitation outcomes dataset. 2010. Khan F, Stevermuer TL, Simmonds FD. Rehabilitation for Guillain Barre syndrome: analysis of the Australian rehabilitation outcomes dataset. 2010.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Alentorn MA, Alentorn A, Martínez-Yelamos S, Martínez-Matos JA, Povedano M, Montero J, et al. Very early electrodiagnostic Albertí findings in Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2011;16(2):136–42.CrossRefPubMed Alentorn MA, Alentorn A, Martínez-Yelamos S, Martínez-Matos JA, Povedano M, Montero J, et al. Very early electrodiagnostic Albertí findings in Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2011;16(2):136–42.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Mizuguchi K, Hoshino H, Abe Y, Nagasawa T, Oka A, Kubota M. Early and serial electrodiagnostic findings in childhood Guillain-Barré syndrome. No Hattatsu Brain Dev. 2008;40:460–4. Mizuguchi K, Hoshino H, Abe Y, Nagasawa T, Oka A, Kubota M. Early and serial electrodiagnostic findings in childhood Guillain-Barré syndrome. No Hattatsu Brain Dev. 2008;40:460–4.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Uncini A, Manzoli C, Notturno F, Capasso M. Pitfalls in electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(10):1157–63.CrossRefPubMed Uncini A, Manzoli C, Notturno F, Capasso M. Pitfalls in electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(10):1157–63.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Grebenciucova E, Rezania K. Immunopathogenesis and treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. In: Minagar A, Alexander JS, editors. Inflammatory disorders of the nervous system. Berlin: Springer; 2017. p. 203–25.CrossRef Grebenciucova E, Rezania K. Immunopathogenesis and treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. In: Minagar A, Alexander JS, editors. Inflammatory disorders of the nervous system. Berlin: Springer; 2017. p. 203–25.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Derksen A, Ritter C, Athar P, Kieseier BC, Mancias P, Hartung H-P, et al. Sural sparing pattern discriminates Guillain-Barré syndrome from its mimics: sural Sparing in GBS. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50(5):780–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Derksen A, Ritter C, Athar P, Kieseier BC, Mancias P, Hartung H-P, et al. Sural sparing pattern discriminates Guillain-Barré syndrome from its mimics: sural Sparing in GBS. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50(5):780–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallardo E, Sedano MJ, Orizaola P, Sánchez-Juan P, González-Suárez A, García A, et al. Spinal nerve involvement in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: a clinico-electrophysiological, ultrasonographic and pathological study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(4):810–9.CrossRefPubMed Gallardo E, Sedano MJ, Orizaola P, Sánchez-Juan P, González-Suárez A, García A, et al. Spinal nerve involvement in early Guillain-Barré syndrome: a clinico-electrophysiological, ultrasonographic and pathological study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(4):810–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Grimm A, Décard BF, Axer H, Fuhr P. The Ultrasound pattern sum score-UPSS: a new method to differentiate acute and subacute neuropathies using ultrasound of the peripheral nerves. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(11):2216–25.CrossRefPubMed Grimm A, Décard BF, Axer H, Fuhr P. The Ultrasound pattern sum score-UPSS: a new method to differentiate acute and subacute neuropathies using ultrasound of the peripheral nerves. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(11):2216–25.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon PH, Wilbourn AJ. Early electrodiagnostic findings in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Arch Neurol. 2001;58(6):913–7.CrossRefPubMed Gordon PH, Wilbourn AJ. Early electrodiagnostic findings in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Arch Neurol. 2001;58(6):913–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Sugimoto T, Ochi K, Hosomi N, Mukai T, Ueno H, Takahashi T, et al. Ultrasonographic reference sizes of the median and ulnar nerves and the cervical nerve roots in healthy Japanese adults. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(9):1560–70.CrossRefPubMed Sugimoto T, Ochi K, Hosomi N, Mukai T, Ueno H, Takahashi T, et al. Ultrasonographic reference sizes of the median and ulnar nerves and the cervical nerve roots in healthy Japanese adults. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(9):1560–70.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Kerasnoudis A, Pitarokoili K, Behrendt V, Gold R, Yoon M-S. Increased cerebrospinal fluid protein and motor conduction studies as prognostic markers of outcome and nerve ultrasound changes in Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Neurol Sci. 2014;340(1–2):37–43.CrossRefPubMed Kerasnoudis A, Pitarokoili K, Behrendt V, Gold R, Yoon M-S. Increased cerebrospinal fluid protein and motor conduction studies as prognostic markers of outcome and nerve ultrasound changes in Guillain-Barré syndrome. J Neurol Sci. 2014;340(1–2):37–43.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Rajabally YA, Morlese J, Kathuria D, Khan A. Median nerve ultrasonography in distinguishing neuropathy sub-types: a pilot study: ultrasonography in neuropathy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;125(4):254–9.CrossRefPubMed Rajabally YA, Morlese J, Kathuria D, Khan A. Median nerve ultrasonography in distinguishing neuropathy sub-types: a pilot study: ultrasonography in neuropathy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;125(4):254–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Kerasnoudis A, Woitalla D, Gold R, Pitarokoili K, Yoon M-S. Sarcoid neuropathy: correlation of nerve ultrasound, electrophysiological and clinical findings. J Neurol Sci. 2014;347(1–2):129–36.CrossRefPubMed Kerasnoudis A, Woitalla D, Gold R, Pitarokoili K, Yoon M-S. Sarcoid neuropathy: correlation of nerve ultrasound, electrophysiological and clinical findings. J Neurol Sci. 2014;347(1–2):129–36.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Palumbo C, Massa R, Panico MB, Di Muzio A, Sinibaldi P, Bernardi G, et al. Peripheral nerve extracellular matrix remodeling in Charcot-Marie-Tooth type I disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2002;104(3):287–96.CrossRefPubMed Palumbo C, Massa R, Panico MB, Di Muzio A, Sinibaldi P, Bernardi G, et al. Peripheral nerve extracellular matrix remodeling in Charcot-Marie-Tooth type I disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2002;104(3):287–96.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Electrophysiological studies versus high-resolution nerve ultrasound in diagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome
verfasst von
Ahmed Abou Hagar
Mohamed Negm
Samer Elshamly
Osama Shehab
Walid Mosallam
Reda Abd El-Razek
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2024
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-024-00799-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery 1/2024 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Neurologie

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Thrombektomie auch bei großen Infarkten von Vorteil

16.05.2024 Ischämischer Schlaganfall Nachrichten

Auch ein sehr ausgedehnter ischämischer Schlaganfall scheint an sich kein Grund zu sein, von einer mechanischen Thrombektomie abzusehen. Dafür spricht die LASTE-Studie, an der Patienten und Patientinnen mit einem ASPECTS von maximal 5 beteiligt waren.

Schwindelursache: Massagepistole lässt Otholiten tanzen

14.05.2024 Benigner Lagerungsschwindel Nachrichten

Wenn jüngere Menschen über ständig rezidivierenden Lagerungsschwindel klagen, könnte eine Massagepistole der Auslöser sein. In JAMA Otolaryngology warnt ein Team vor der Anwendung hochpotenter Geräte im Bereich des Nackens.

Schützt Olivenöl vor dem Tod durch Demenz?

10.05.2024 Morbus Alzheimer Nachrichten

Konsumieren Menschen täglich 7 Gramm Olivenöl, ist ihr Risiko, an einer Demenz zu sterben, um mehr als ein Viertel reduziert – und dies weitgehend unabhängig von ihrer sonstigen Ernährung. Dafür sprechen Auswertungen zweier großer US-Studien.

Update Neurologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.