Difference between revisions of "3° Clinical case: Meningioma"

Well, these two asymmetry/symmetry data (figure 2a and 2c) have no clinical significance because they are functional characteristics of the system which, as we anticipated, are unstable and modulated by other internal and external components of the system itself. The clinical and laboratory aspect would change drastically if the interferential EMG pattern content in Figure 2a and 2c were normalized to the content of the Motor Evoked Potential of the trigeminal roots (Figure 2b) - same electrode arrangement). In this way, given the perfect amplitude symmetry of the Root-MEPs, we can irrefutably state that the EMG tracing in figure 2a corresponds to a state of 'Asymmetry' while that of figure 2c to a state of 'Symmetry'. If the _bRoot-MEPs were resulted asymmetric we would have had to speak of organic and functional symmetry and not of asymmetry. We should have looked for the causes, perhaps of measurement errors or verifying the extent of the asymmetry of the motor evoked potentials, but the concept is that we cannot give value to a functional peripheral datum without knowing the organic datum. {{q2|Beware of using the term 'Asymmetry' too casually|We can say that by throwing a die we have <math>\frac{1}{36}</math>  of probability that a number from 1 to 6 comes out but we must be sure that the die has 6 sides and that the numbers are from 1 to 6}}</blockquote>We could go on and on but we prefer to deal with the clinical case of our patient '<u>Balancer</u>'