Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Reference Values for Peroneal Nerve Motor Conduction to the Tibialis Anterior and for Peroneal vs. Tibial Latencies

Buschbacher, Ralph M. MD

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation: April 2003 - Volume 82 - Issue 4 - p 296-301
doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000057222.01180.62
Research Articles: Electromyography

Buschbacher RM: Reference values for peroneal nerve motor conduction to the tibialis anterior and for peroneal vs. tibial latencies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82:296–301.

Objective To generate a large normative database for the peroneal study to the tibialis anterior and to analyze differences between the peroneal latency to the extensor digitorum brevis and the tibial latency to the abductor hallucis.

Design A total of 244 asymptomatic subjects without risk factors for neuropathy were tested for latency, amplitude, area, duration, and nerve conduction velocity to the tibialis anterior. For the peroneal/tibial analysis, 221 subjects were included. Temperature control was used, and demographic characteristics were recorded.

Results Latency to the tibialis anterior increased and nerve conduction velocity decreased with increasing height. Amplitudes, area, and nerve conduction velocity were lower in older persons. The upper limits of normal (97th percentile) were 4.9 msec (latency) and 15.0 msec (duration). The lower limits of normal (3rd percentile) were 1.7 mV (amplitude), 6.8 μV/sec (area), and 43 m/sec (nerve conduction velocity). The upper limits of normal side-to-side difference was 1.2 msec (latency), 6.3 msec (duration), 50% (amplitude), 47% (area), and 20% (nerve conduction velocity). The upper limits of normal drop from below– to above–fibular-head stimulation was 36% (amplitude) and 43% (area). For the peroneal/tibial comparison, the upper limits of normal latency increase of peroneal over tibial was 1.8 msec and tibial over peroneal was 1.5 msec.

Conclusion A large normative database was collected. Upper and lower limits of normal were calculated, and side-to-side differences were analyzed. For the peroneal/tibial comparison, an upper limits of normal difference was described.

From the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Supported, in part, by Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation–Education and Research Foundation New Investigator Award, TECA Inc., XLTEK Ltd., Dantec Medical, Sharn Inc., and Lafayette Instrument.

All correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Ralph M. Buschbacher, MD, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, CL 368, 541 North Clinical Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

© 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.