Motor evoked potentials in predicting recovery from XXXX after @entity64 .

@entity1 @entity64 @entity121 @entity912
OBJECTIVE: The use of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in predicting recovery after @entity64 still appears to be somehow equivocal. We assessed the prognostic value of MEPs with respect to arm and hand motor recovery in @entity64 @entity1 . METHODS: This cohort study included 43 consecutive @entity64 @entity1 with complete @entity912 of the upper extremity. MEPs of the @entity121 ( @entity121 ) and the biceps brachii muscle (BB) were obtained within 10 days after @entity64 onset. The upper limb subset of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment was used to evaluate the motor performance at regular intervals until 6 months after @entity64 . RESULTS: The follow-up was complete in 40 @entity1 (2 @entity1 died and 1 @entity1 had a recurrent @entity64 ); 14 @entity1 showed motor recovery of the arm and their mean 26-week arm motor score was 17.93 (range 3-30, SD 11.68); hand motor recovery occurred in 11 @entity1 and their mean 26-week hand motor score was 11.09 (range 4-14, SD 4.10). Stepwise logistic regression revealed prognostic models for both arm and hand motor recovery based on BB MEPs (odds ratio 7.69, confidence interval, CI, 1.16-50.95) and @entity121 MEPs (odds ratio 16.20, CI 2.51-104.40), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive significance of MEPs with respect to motor recovery of the upper extremity was obvious in our homogeneous sample of @entity1 . This agrees with the paradigm that motor recovery after infarction is strongly dependent on a critical residual sparing of the corticospinal function. In this context, the test properties of MEPs in predicting motor recovery are discussed. The added value of MEPs with respect to motor recovery of the upper extremity should be regarded as established for @entity1 with initial @entity912 , especially since clinical examination alone lacks the possibility to detect the potential for motor recovery in these cases.
