Reappraisal of Supraorbital Sensory Nerve Conduction Recordings: Orthodromic and Antidromic Techniques

Abstract

ObjectiveTo establish a supraorbital nerve sensory conduction recording method and assess its usefulness.MethodsThirty-one healthy subjects without a history of trauma or neurological disease were recruited. For the orthodromic procedure, the recording electrode was attached immediately superior to the supraorbital notch. The stimulation electrode was placed on points along the hairline which evoked the largest sensory nerve action potentials (SNAPs). The antidromic sensory response was recorded after switching the recording and stimulating electrodes. The measured parameters were onset latency, peak latency, and baseline to peak amplitude of the SNAPs. The electrophysiological parameters of the bilateral supraorbital nerves were compared. We also recruited two patients who had sensory deficits on one side of their foreheads because of laceration injuries.ResultsThe parameters of orthodromically recorded SNAPs were as follows: onset latency 1.21±0.22 ms (range, 0.9–1.6 ms), peak latency 1.54±0.23 ms (range, 1.2–2.2 ms), and baseline to peak amplitude 4.16±1.92 µV (range, 1.4–10 µV). Those of antidromically recorded SNAPs were onset latency 1.31±0.27 ms (range, 0.8–1.7 ms), peak latency 1.62±0.29 ms (range, 1.3–2.2 ms), and baseline to peak amplitude 4.00±1.89 µV (range, 1.5–9.0 µV). There was no statistical difference in onset latency, peak latency, or baseline to peak amplitude between the responses obtained using the orthodromic and antidromic methods, and the parameters also revealed no statistical difference between the supraorbital nerves on both sides.ConclusionWe have successfully recorded supraorbital SNAPs. This conduction technique could be quite useful in evaluating patients with supraorbital nerve lesions.

Electrophysiological characteristics of the frontal nerve in patients with herpetic ophthalmic neuralgia

“…However, the intra‐side and inter‐side differences in amplitude were not significantly different. The reference SNAP amplitudes of the STN and SONs obtained in our study were significantly higher than those reported by Park because our normal amplitude values used near‐nerve techniques, which show greater responses.…”

“…However, the intra-side and inter-side differences in amplitude were not significantly different. The reference SNAP amplitudes of the STN and SONs obtained in our study were significantly higher than those reported by Park 25 distal latencies, which are reported to vary with age. 34 Statistically significant differences in any of the parameters analyzed in this study were not observed between groups stratified by gender and age, and part of the reason may be that the age groups of the recruited subjects were relatively narrow.…”

“…In previous studies, the SNAPs obtained with a single‐channel method did not clearly reflect the overall features of the nerves of the forehead. The major finding in this study was the use of 3 channels to obtain serial SNAPs of the SONs and STN to evaluate the frontal nerve.…”

“…1A). [19][20][21] A few methods for assessing SNC in V1 have been described, [22][23][24][25][26] but reports of abnormalities in patients with neuropathic lesions are scarce. SNC studies may provide important indications of VZVinduced peripheral nerve damage; however, a dynamic and complete analysis of SNC performance in VZV-induced neuropathy is still lacking.…”