<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="other" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Neuromuscular Diseases</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Neuromuscular Diseases</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Нервно-мышечные болезни</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2222-8721</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2413-0443</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Publishing House ABV Press</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">407</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17650/2222-8721-2020-10-4-43-51</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>CLINICAL CASE</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>КЛИНИЧЕСКИЙ РАЗБОР</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject></subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Specificity of recovery in acute motor axonal neuropathy with conduction blocks on the example of two clinical cases</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Особенности восстановления при острой моторной аксональной невропатии с блоками проведения на примере двух клинических случаев</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7924-3405</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Grishina</surname><given-names>D. A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Гришина</surname><given-names>Д. А.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Volokolamskoe shosse, Moscow 125367</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Дарья Александровна Гришина</p><p>125367 Москва, Волоколамское шоссе, 80</p></bio><email>dgrishina82@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3956-6362</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Suponeva</surname><given-names>N. A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Супонева</surname><given-names>Н. А.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Volokolamskoe shosse, Moscow 125367</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>125367 Москва, Волоколамское шоссе, 80</p></bio><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Research Center of Neurology</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">ФГБНУ «Научный центр неврологии»</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2020-12-29" publication-format="electronic"><day>29</day><month>12</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue>4</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>43</fpage><lpage>51</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2020-12-29"><day>29</day><month>12</month><year>2020</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2020-12-29"><day>29</day><month>12</month><year>2020</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2020, Grishina D.A., Suponeva N.A.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2020, Гришина Д.А., Супонева Н.А.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2020</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Grishina D.A., Suponeva N.A.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Гришина Д.А., Супонева Н.А.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://nmb.abvpress.ru/jour/article/view/407">https://nmb.abvpress.ru/jour/article/view/407</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p><bold>Introduction</bold>. The heterogeneity of the forms and severity of Guillain-Barre syndrome explains the variability of recovery: from rapid and complete (in most cases) to slow with the development of persistent residual deficiency (rarely). It is unclear how effective the Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modified version are for different forms of the disease.</p><p><bold>The aim of the study</bold> – to demonstrate the features of recovery in acute motor axonal neuropathy with conduction blocks on the example of 2 clinical cases; to show the possibilities of Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modified version in predicting recovery in this form of the disease.</p><p><bold>Materials and methods</bold>. Data from 2 patients with acute motor axonal neuropathy with motor conduction blocks were retrospectively analyzed. Calculation of the score and assessment of the prognosis of walking recovery by 6 months from the onset of the disease were performed using the online calculator International Guillain-Barre syndrome Outcome Study Prognosis tool in the acute period.</p><p><bold>Results</bold>. In both patients, the forecast of recovery of walking by half a year from the onset of the disease on the Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and modified Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores scales in the acute period was erroneous. In the first case, the total score on the Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modification in the acute period was 5 and 10 points respectively (poor prognosis), which foreshadowed a long rehabilitation process and incomplete recovery. However, the regression of disorders was dramatic and complete, and by the second month of the disease, only minimal motor disorders remained. In the second patient, on the contrary, the total Erasmus Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Scores and its modification during the period of increasing symptoms was 3 and 7 points respectively (good prognosis), while recovery was delayed – only by 5 months from the onset of the disease, the ability to move with support was restored.</p><p><bold>Conclusion</bold>. The Guillain–Barre syndrome is a disease with a favorable prognosis for recovery. However, the prediction of regression of motor disorders should be approached carefully, because in some cases, generally accepted criteria and prognostic scales may not work. Acute motor axonal neuropathy with conduction blocks is a unique form of the disease that has pathophysiological and clinical-neurophysiological features, which should be taken into account when managing this category of patients.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p><bold>Введение</bold>. Гетерогенность форм и степеней тяжести синдрома Гийена–Барре обусловливает вариабельность восстановления: от быстрого и полного (в большинстве случаев) до крайне замедленного, с формированием стойкого остаточного дефицита (редко). Остается неясным вопрос, насколько шкала прогноза восстановления при синдроме Гийена–Барре Эрасмус и ее модифицированная версия применимы ко всем формам заболевания.</p><p><bold>Цель исследования</bold> – на примере 2 клинических случаев продемонстрировать особенности восстановления при острой моторной аксональной невропатии с блоками проведения; показать возможности шкалы прогноза восстановления при синдроме ГийенаБарре Эрасмус и ее модифицированной версии в прогнозировании восстановления при данной форме заболевания.</p><p><bold>Материалы и методы</bold>. Ретроспективно проанализированы данные 2 пациенток с острой моторной аксональной невропатией с моторными блоками проведения. Расчет баллов и оценка прогноза восстановления ходьбы к 6 мес от начала заболевания проводились с использованием онлайн-калькулятора International Guillain–Barre syndrome Outcome Study Prognosis tool в остром периоде. Результаты. У обеих пациенток прогноз восстановления ходьбы к полугоду от начала заболевания по шкалам прогноза восстановления при синдроме Гийена–Барре и ее модификации в остром периоде оказался ошибочным. В первом случае суммарная оценка по шкале прогноза восстановления при синдроме Гийена–Барре Эрасмус и ее модицикации в остром периоде составила 5 и 10 баллов соответственно (плохой прогноз), что предвещало длительный реабилитационный процесс и неполное восстановление. Однако регресс нарушений был драматическим и полным, и уже ко 2-му месяцу заболевания сохранялись лишь минимальные двигательные нарушения. У 2-й пациентки, напротив, суммарная оценка по шкале прогноза восстановления при синдроме Гийена–Барре Эрасмус и ее модифицикации в период нарастания симптоматики была равна 3 и 7 баллам соответственно (хороший прогноз), при этом восстановление было отсроченным – только к 5-му месяцу от начала заболевания восстановилась возможность передвижения с опорой.</p><p><bold>Выводы</bold>. Синдром Гиейна–Барре, несомненно, является заболеванием с благоприятным прогнозом восстановления. Однако к прогнозированию сценария регресса двигательных нарушений следует подходить осторожно, так как в ряде случаев общепринятые критерии прогностические шкалы могут не работать. Острая моторная аксональная невропатия с блоками проведения – уникальная форма болезни, имеющая патофизиологические и клинико-нейрофизиологические особенности, что следует учитывать при ведении данной категории пациентов.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>acute motor axonal neuropathy</kwd><kwd>conduction block</kwd><kwd>Guillain–Barre syndrome</kwd><kwd>prognosis</kwd><kwd>recovery</kwd><kwd>prognostic scale</kwd><kwd>EGOS</kwd><kwd>mEGOS</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>острая моторная аксональная невропатия</kwd><kwd>блок проведения</kwd><kwd>синдром Гийена–Барре</kwd><kwd>прогноз</kwd><kwd>восстановление</kwd><kwd>прогностическая шкала</kwd><kwd>EGOS</kwd><kwd>mEGOS</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">History of “radiculoneuritis syndrome” description. Nervnomyshechnye bolezni = Neuromuscular Diseases 2016;6(4):52–3. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Никитин С.С., Ковальчук М.О. История описания «синдрома радикулоневрита». Нервно-мышечные болезни 2016;6(4):52–3.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Créange A. Guillain-Barré syndrome: 100 years on. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2016;172(12):770–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurol.2016.10.011. PMID: 27866731.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Hughes R.A.C. Guillain–Barré syndrome: looking back... and forward. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;91(2):111–2. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2019-322361. PMID: 31924731.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Asbury A.K. New concepts of Guillain–Barré syndrome. Review. J Child Neurol 2000;15(3):183–91. DOI: 10.1177/088307380001500308. PMID: 10757475.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Leonhard S.E., Mandarakas M.R., Gondim F.A.A. et al. Diagnosis and management of Guillain-Barré syndrome in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol 2019;15(11): 671–83. DOI: 10.1038/s41582-019-0250-9. PMID: 31541214.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Uncini A., Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol 2018;129(12):2586–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025. PMID: 30419502.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Van den Berg B., Walgaard C., Drenthen J. et al. Guillain–Barré syndrome: pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10(8):469–82. DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.121. PMID: 25023340.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Van der Meché F.G., Van Doorn P.A., Meulstee J. et al. Diagnostic and classification criteria for the Guillain–Barré syndrome. Eur Neurol 2001;45(3): 133–9. DOI: 10.1159/000052111. PMID: 11306855.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Piradov M.A., Suponeva N.A. Guillain–Barre Syndrome: diagnosis and treatment. Moscow: Medpress-inform, 2011. 208 p. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Пирадов М.А., Супонева Н.А. Синдром Гийена–Барре: диагностика и лечение. М.: МЕДпресс-информ, 2011. 208 с.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Grishina D.A., Suponeva N.A., Piradov M.A. Guillain–Barre Syndrome: features of restoration of demyelinating and axonal forms. Annaly klinicheskoy I experimentalnoy nevrologii = Annals of clinical and experimental neurology 2012; 6(4):18–25. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Гришина Д.А., Супонева Н.А., Пирадов М.А. Синдром Гийена–Барре: особенности восстановления демиелинизирующих и аксональных форм. Анналы клинической и экспериментальной неврологии 2012;6(4):18–25.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Suponeva N.A. Guillain–Barre syndrome: epidemiology, differential diagnosis, pathomorphosis, risk factors: dis. ... Doctor of medical sciences. Moscow, 2013. 305 (In Russ.).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Супонева Н.А. Синдром Гийена–Барре: эпидемиология, дифференциальная диагностика, патоморфоз, факторы риска: Дис. ... д-ра мед. наук. М., 2013. 305 с.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Grishina D.A. Guillain–Barre syndrome: catamnestic clinical and neurophysiological research: Dis. ... kand. med. nauk. Moscow, 2013. 135 p. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Гришина Д.А. Синдром Гийена–Барре: катамнестическое клинико-нейрофизиологическое исследование: Дис. ... канд. мед. наук. М., 2013. 135 с.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Bernsen R.A., Jager A.E., Schmitz P.I., van der Meché F.G. Long-term impact on work and private life after Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Neurol Sci 2002;201(1–2): 13–7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022510x(02)00158-2. PMID: 12163188.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Bersano A., Carpo M., Allaria S. et al. Long term disability and social status change after Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Neurol 2006;253(2):214–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-005-0958-x. PMID: 16096809.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Forsberg A., Press R., Einarsson U. et al. Disability and health-related quality of life in Guillain-Barré syndrome during the first two years after onset: a prospective study. Clin Rehabil 2005;19(8):900–9. DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr918oa. PMID: 16323390.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Koeppen S., Kraywinkel K., Wessendorf T.E. et al. Long-term outcome of Guillain–Barré syndrome. Neurocrit Care 2006;5(3):235–42. DOI: 10.1385/NCC:5:3:235. PMID: 17290096.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Rajabally Y.A., Uncini A. Outcome and its predictors in Guillain–Barre syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83(7):711–8. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2011-301882. PMID: 22566597.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Jacobs B.C., van den Berg B., Verboon C. et al. IGOS Consortium. International Guillain–Barré syndrome outcome study: protocol of a prospective observational cohort study on clinical and biological predictors of disease course and outcome in Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2017;22(2):68–76. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12209. PMID: 28406555.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Yamagishi Y., Kusunoki S. The prognosis and prognostic factor of Guillain–Barré Syndrome. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 2020;60(4):247–52. DOI: 10.5692/clinicalneurol.cn-001398. PMID: 32238748.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Tian J., Cao C., Li T. et al. Electrophysiological subtypes and prognostic factors of Guillain–Barre syndrome in Northern China. Front Neurol 2019;10:714. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00714. PMID: 31333568.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Van Doorn P.A. Diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). Presse Med 2013;42(6):193–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.lpm.2013.02.328. PMID: 23628447.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Hughes R.A., Hadden R.D., Rees J.H., Swan A.V. The Italian Guillain–Barré study group. The prognosis and main prognostic indicators of Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre prospective study of 297 patients. Brain 1998;121(4):767–9. DOI: 10.1093/brain/121.4.767. PMID: 9577400.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Kaida K. Prognostic factors in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 2013;53(11):1315–8. DOI: 10.5692/clinicalneurol.53.1315. PMID: 24291972.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Suponeva N.A., Piradov M.A., Nikitin S.S. et al. Pathogenetic and prognostic role of autoantibodies to peripheral nerve gangliosides in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Annaly klinicheskoy I experimentalnoy nevrologii = Annals of clinical and experimental neurology 2013;7(1):4–11. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Супонева Н.А., Пирадов М.А., Никитин С.С. и др. Патогенетическая и прогностическая роль аутоантител к ганглиозидам периферических нервов при синдроме Гийена–Барре. Анналы клинической и экспериментальной неврологии 2013;7(1):4–11.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Bölükbaşi F., Ersen G., Gündüz A. et al. Guillain–Barré syndrome and its variants: clinical course and prognostic factors. Noro Psikiyatr Ars 2019;56(1):71–4. DOI: 10.5152/npa.2017.18091. PMID: 30911241.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>van Koningsveld R., Steyerberg E.W., Hughes R.A. et al. A clinical prognostic scoring system for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Lancet Neurol 2007;6(7):589–94. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70130-8. PMID: 17537676.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Walgaard C., Lingsma H.F., Ruts L. et al. Early recognition of poor prognosis in Guillain-Barre syndrome. Neurology 2011;76(11):968–75. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182104407. PMID: 21403108.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Tan C.Y., Razali S.N.O., Goh K.J., Shahrizaila N. The utility of Guillain-Barré syndrome prognostic models in Malaysian patients. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2019;24(2): 168–73. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12320. PMID: 31001904.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Forsberg A., Press R., Holmqvist L.W. Residual disability 10 years after falling ill in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a prospective follow-up study. J Neurol Sci 2012;317(1– 2):74–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2012.02.026. PMID: 22425539.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Chakraborty T., Kramer C.L., Wijdicks E.F.M., Rabinstein A.A. Dysautonomia in Guillain-Barré syndrome: prevalence, clinical spectrum, and outcomes. Neurocrit Care 2020;32(1):113–20. DOI: 10.1007/s12028-019-00781-w. PMID: 31297663.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Yamagishi Y., Suzuki H., Sonoo M. et al. Markers for Guillain–Barré syndrome with poor prognosis: a multi-center study. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2017;22(4):433–9. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12234. PMID: 28833828.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>van Doorn P.A., Kuitwaard K., Walgaard C. et al. IVIG treatment and prognosis in Guillain–Barré syndrome. J Clin Immunol 2010;30:74–8. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-010-9407-4. PMID: 20396937.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Walgaard C., Jacobs B.C., Lingsma H.F. et al.; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients with poor prognosis (SID-GBS trial): protocol for a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2018;23(4):210–5. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12286. PMID: 30151941.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Verboon C., van den Berg B., Cornblath D.R. et al. IGOS Consortium. Original research: Second IVIg course in Guillain– Barré syndrome with poor prognosis: the non-randomised ISID study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2020;91(2):113–21. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2019-321496. PMID: 31586949.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Dourado J.M., Fernandes U.T., Ramos E.S. et al. Egos has a reduced capacity to predicts GBS prognosis in Northeast Brazil. Acta Neurol Scand 2018;138(5): 459–62. DOI: 10.1111/ane.12995. PMID: 30003535.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
