Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses.

Reason for Performing Study: So far, only transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEP) of the extensor carpi radialis and tibialis cranialis have been documented for diagnostic evaluation in horses. These allow for differentiating whether lesions are located in either the thoraco-lumbar region or in the cervical myelum and/or brain. Transcranial trapezius MEPs further enable to distinguish between spinal and supraspinal located lesions. No normative data are available. It is unclear whether transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are interchangeable modalities. Objectives: To provide normative data for trapezius MEP parameters in horses for TES and TMS and to discern direct and indirect conduction routes by neurophysiological models that use anatomical geometric characteristics to relate latency times with peripheral (PCV) and central conduction velocities (CCV). Methods: Transcranial electrical stimulation-induced trapezius MEPs were obtained from twelve horses. TES and TMS-MEPs (subgroup 5 horses) were compared intra-individually. Trapezius MEPs were measured bilaterally twice at 5 intensity steps. Motoneurons were localized using nerve conduction models of the cervical and spinal accessory nerves (SAN). Predicted CCVs were verified by multifidus MEP data from two horses referred for neurophysiological assessment. Results: Mean MEP latencies revealed for TES: 13.5 (11.1-16.0)ms and TMS: 19.7 (12-29.5)ms, comprising ∼100% direct routes and for TMS mixed direct/indirect routes of L:23/50; R:14/50. Left/right latency decreases over 10 > 50 V for TES were: -1.4/-1.8 ms and over 10 > 50% for TMS: -1.7/-3.5 ms. Direct route TMS-TES latency differences were 1.88-4.30 ms. 95% MEP amplitudes ranges for TES were: L:0.26-22 mV; R:0.5-15 mV and TMS: L:0.9 - 9.1 mV; R:1.1-7.9 mV. Conclusion: This is the first study to report normative data characterizing TES and TMS induced- trapezius MEPs in horses. The complex trapezius innervation leaves TES as the only reliable stimulation modality. Differences in latency times along the SAN route permit for estimation of the location of active motoneurons, which is of importance for clinical diagnostic purpose. SAN route lengths and latency times are governed by anatomical locations of motoneurons across C2-C5 segments. TES intensity-dependent reductions of trapezius MEP latencies are similar to limb muscles while MEP amplitudes between sides and between TES and TMS are not different. CCVs may reach 180 m/s.

Comparison of Muscle MEPs From Transcranial Magnetic and Electrical Stimulation and Appearance of Reflexes in Horses.

INTRODUCTION: Transcranial electrical (TES) and magnetic stimulation (TMS) are both used for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord in horses. Muscular motor evoked potentials (mMEP) were compared intra-individually for both techniques in five healthy horses. mMEPs were measured twice at increasing stimulation intensity steps over the extensor carpi radialis (ECR), tibialis cranialis (TC), and caninus muscles. Significance was set at p < 0.05. To support the hypothesis that both techniques induce extracranially elicited mMEPs, literature was also reviewed. RESULTS: Both techniques show the presence of late mMEPs below the transcranial threshold appearing as extracranially elicited startle responses. The occurrence of these late mMEPs is especially important for interpretation of TMS tracings when coil misalignment can have an additional influence. Mean transcranial motor latency times (MLT; synaptic delays included) and conduction velocities (CV) of the ECR and TC were significantly different between both techniques: respectively, 4.2 and 5.5 ms (MLT TMS --MLT TES ), and -7.7 and -9.9 m/s (CV TMS -CV TES ). TMS and TES show intensity-dependent latency decreases of, respectively, -2.6 (ECR) and -2.7 ms (TC)/30% magnetic intensity and -2.6 (ECR) and -3.2 (TC) ms/30V. When compared to TMS, TES shows the lowest coefficients of variation and highest reproducibility and accuracy for MLTs. This is ascribed to the fact that TES activates a lower number of cascaded interneurons, allows for multipulse stimulation, has an absence of coil repositioning errors, and has less sensitivity for varying degrees of background muscle tonus. Real axonal conduction times and conduction velocities are most closely approximated by TES. CONCLUSION: Both intracranial and extracranial mMEPs inevitably carry characteristics of brainstem reflexes. To avoid false interpretations, transcranial mMEPs can be identified by a stepwise latency shortening of 15-20 ms when exceeding the transcranial motor threshold at increasing stimulation intensities. A ring block around the vertex is advised to reduce interference by extracranial mMEPs. mMEPs reflect the functional integrity of the route along the brainstem nuclei, extrapyramidal motor tracts, propriospinal neurons, and motoneurons. The corticospinal tract appears subordinate in horses. TMS and TES are interchangeable for assessing the functional integrity of motor functions of the spinal cord. However, TES reveals significantly shorter MLTs, higher conduction velocities, and better reproducibility.