Resumen:
In an active motor unit (MU), the time intervals between the firings of its muscle fibers vary across successive MU activations. This variability is called jitter and is increased in pathological processes that affect the neuromuscular junctions or terminal axonal segments of MUs. Traditionally, jitter has been measured using single fiber electrodes (SFEs) and a difficult and subjective manual technique. SFEs are expensive and reused, implying a potential risk of patient infection; so, they are being gradually substituted by safer, disposable, concentric needle electrodes (CNEs). As CNEs are larger, voltage contributions from individual fibers of a MU are more difficult to detect, making jitter measurement more difficult. This paper presents an automatic method to estimate jitter from trains of motor unit potentials (MUPs), for both SFE and CNE records. For a MUP train, segments of MUPs generated by single muscle fibers (SF MUP segments) are found and jitter is measured between pairs of these segments. Segments whose estimated jitter values are not reliable, according to several SF MUP segment characteristics, are excluded. The method has been tested in several simulation studies that use mathematical models of muscle fiber potentials. The results are very satisfactory in terms of jitter estimation error (less than 10% in most of the cases studied) and mean number of valid jitter estimates obtained per simulated train (greater than 1.0 in many of the cases and less than 0.5 only in the most complicated). A preliminary study with real signals was also performed, using 19 MUP trains from 3 neuropathic patients. Jitter measurements obtained by the automatic method were compared with those extracted from a commercial system (Keypoint) and the edition and supervision of an expert electromyographer. From these measurements 63% were taken from equivalent interval pair sites within the time span of the MUP trains and, as such, were considered as compatible measurements. Differences in jitter of these compatible measurements were very low (mean value of 1.3 mu s, mean of absolute differences of 2.97 mu s, 25% and 75% percentile intervals of -0.85 and 3.82 mu s, respectively). Although new tests with larger number of real recordings are still required, the method seems promising for clinical practice.
