Article

Motor unit number index (MUNIX): principle, method, and findings in healthy subjects and in patients with motor neuron disease.

CareFusion, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA.
Muscle & Nerve (Impact Factor: 2.31). 11/2010; 42(5):798-807. DOI: 10.1002/mus.21824
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The motor unit number index (MUNIX) is a method for assessment of number and size (MUSIX) of motor units (MUs) using the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and surface electromyographic interference pattern (SIP). This method was used to study the hypothenar muscle in 34 healthy subjects to define normal range, and to study reproducibility. Four healthy subjects and 13 patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) were studied serially over a 1-year period. In healthy subjects, MUNIX showed good reproducibility. In serial studies, healthy subjects showed no change in the CMAP amplitude and MUNIX. ALS patients with minimal change in CMAP amplitude had a significant drop in MUNIX and increase in MUSIX, indicating MU loss compensated by reinnervation. When the CMAP changed significantly (>30%) in 1 year, the CMAP and MUNIX decreased in parallel. MUNIX would be useful to study MU loss in degenerative diseases of motor neurons. Muscle Nerve 42: 798-807, 2010.

1 Follower
 · 
291 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate how the motor unit number index (MUNIX) is related to high-density motor unit number estimation (HD-MUNE) in healthy controls and patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Both MUNIX and HD-MUNE were performed on the thenar muscles in 18 ALS patients and 24 healthy controls. Patients were measured at baseline, within 2 weeks, and after 4 and 8 months. Clinical evaluation included Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and the ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS). There was a significant positive correlation between MUNE and MUNIX values in ALS patients (r=0.49 at baseline; r=0.56 at 4 months; r=0.56 at 8 months, all p<0.05), but not in healthy controls. After 8 months, both MUNE and MUNIX values of the ALS patients decreased significantly more compared to MRC scale, ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS) and compound muscle action potential (CMAP) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in relative decline of MUNIX and HD-MUNE values. In ALS patients, MUNIX and HD-MUNE are significantly correlated. MUNIX has an almost equivalent potential in detecting motor neuron loss compared to HD-MUNE. MUNIX could serve as a reliable and sensitive marker for monitoring disease progression in ALS.
    Clinical neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 02/2012; 123(8):1644-9. DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.004 · 2.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to assess whether there is evidence of spinal motoneuron loss in paretic muscles of stroke survivors, using an index measurement called motor unit number index (MUNIX). MUNIX, a recently developed novel neurophysiological technique, provides an index proportional to the number of motor units in a muscle, but not necessarily an accurate absolute count. The MUNIX technique was applied to the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle bilaterally in nine stroke subjects. The area and power of the maximum M-wave and the interference pattern electromyogram (EMG) at different contraction levels were used to calculate the MUNIX. A motor unit size index (MUSizelndex) was also calculated using maximum M-wave recording and the MUNIX values. We observed a significant decrease in both maximum M-wave amplitude and MUNIX values in the paretic FDI muscles, as compared with the contralateral muscles. Across all subjects, the maximum M-wave amplitude was 6.4 ± 2.3 mV for the paretic muscles and 9.7 ± 2.0 mV for the contralateral muscles (p <; 0.001). These measurements, in combination with voluntary EMG recordings, resulted in the MUNIX value of 109 ± 53 for the paretic muscles, much lower than the MUNIX value of 153 ± 38 for the contralateral muscles (p <; 0.01). No significant difference was found in MUSizelndex values between the paretic and contralateral muscles. However, the range of MUSizelndex values was slightly wider for paretic muscles (48.8-93.3 μV) than the contralateral muscles (51.7-84.4 μV). The findings from the index measurements provide further evidence of spinal motoneuron loss after a hemispheric brain lesion.
    IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 08/2011; DOI:10.1109/TITB.2011.2140379 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the intra-rater and inter-rater test-retest reliability of the Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) in healthy subjects in a multicentre setting. Six study centres applied the MUNIX technique in 66 healthy subjects. Five to six muscles (biceps brachii, BB; abductor digiti minimi, ADM; abductor pollicis brevis, APB; tibialis anterior, TA; extensor digitorum brevis, EDB and abductor hallucis, AH) were measured in each volunteer four times by two independent examiners. The method was easy to perform and well tolerated. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) varied between centres and muscles. Intra-rater reliability was greatest for the AH (ICC 0.83) and EDB (ICC 0.81). Inter-rater reliability was greatest for the AH (ICC 0.69) and ADM muscles (ICC 0.69). The most critical muscle was the APB muscle (ICC 0.52, total variability). This was mostly due to variability in the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) measurements. MUNIX values of the APB, ADM and TA fell into the same range as in other motor unit number estimation (MUNE) studies. MUNIX measurements in multiple muscles show good inter- and intra-rater reliability in healthy subjects. CMAP amplitude must be controlled to optimize reliability. Results suggest that MUNIX could serve as a reliable marker for motor neuron loss in diseases like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
    Clinical neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 03/2011; 122(9):1867-72. DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2011.02.017 · 2.98 Impact Factor