METHODS: Consecutive GBS and MFS patients presenting to our center between 2010 and 2020 were analyzed. The clinical characteristics, electrophysiological data, and antiganglioside antibody profiles of the patients were utilized in determining the clinical classification.
RESULTS: This study classified 132 patients with GBS and its related disorders according to the new classification criteria as follows: 64 (48.5%) as classic GBS, 2 (1.5%) as pharyngeal-cervical-brachial (PCB) variant, 7 (5.3%) as paraparetic GBS, 29 (22%) as classic MFS, 3 (2.3%) as acute ophthalmoparesis, 2 (1.5%) as acute ataxic neuropathy, 2 (1.5%) as Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis (BBE), 17 (12.9%) as GBS/MFS overlap, 4 (3%) as GBS/BBE overlap, 1 (0.8%) as MFS/PCB overlap, and 1 (0.8%) as polyneuritis cranialis. The electrodiagnosis was demyelinating in 55% of classic GBS patients but unclassified in 79% of classic MFS patients. Anti-GM1, anti-GD1a, anti-GalNAc-GD1a, and anti-GD1b IgG ganglioside antibodies were more commonly detected in the axonal GBS subtype, whereas the anti-GQ1b and anti-GT1a IgG ganglioside antibodies were more common in classic MFS and its subtypes.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients in the present cohort met the criteria of either classic GBS or MFS, but variants were seen in one-third of patients. These findings support the need to recognize variants of both syndromes in order to achieve a more-complete case ascertainment in GBS.
Methods: Nerve ultrasound of the median, ulnar, radial, tibial, fibular, and sural nerves was performed in 84 healthy participants at anatomical-defined locations. The CSA at each scanned site was measured by tracing circumferentially inside the hyperechoic rim of each nerve. Comparisons were made between genders and ethnic groups. Correlations with age, ethnicity, gender, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated.
Results: CSA values and reference ranges in healthy participants were generated. Nerve CSA was significantly different in different gender (P = 0.002-0.032) and ethnic groups (P = 0.006-0.038). Men had larger nerve CSA than women, and Malay participants had larger nerve CSA compared to other ethnic groups. Nerve CSA had significant correlations to age, height, weight, and BMI (r = 0.220-0.349, P = 0.001-0.045).
Conclusion: This study provides normative values for CSA of peripheral nerves in a multiethnic Malaysian population, which serves as reference values in the evaluation of peripheral nerve disorders. The ethnic differences in nerve CSA values should be considered during nerve ultrasound.
METHODS: We prospectively recruited 17 GBS patients and 17 age and gender-matched controls. Serial studies of their nerve conduction parameters and nerve ultrasound, documenting the cross-sectional areas (CSA), were performed at admission and repeated at several time points throughout disease course.
RESULTS: Serial nerve ultrasound revealed significantly enlarged CSA in median, ulnar and sural nerves within the first 3 weeks of disease onset. Longitudinal evaluation revealed an improvement in the nerve CSA with time, reaching significance in the ulnar and sural nerves after 12 weeks. There was no significant difference between the demyelinating and axonal subtypes. There was also no significant correlation found between nerve CSA and neurophysiological parameters or changes in nerve CSA and muscle strength.
CONCLUSION: In GBS, serial studies of peripheral nerve ultrasound CSA are helpful to detect a gradual improvement in the nerve size.
SIGNIFICANCE: Serial nerve ultrasound studies could serve as a useful tool in demonstrating nerve recovery in GBS.