GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PERIPHERAL NERVE CONDUCTION PARAMETERS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL STUDY OF HEALTHY ADULTS

Background: Peripheral nerve conduction studies (NCS) are commonly employed to
assess the operational health of the peripheral nervous system. Various physiological
elements such as age, height, and gender can affect typical NCS measurements.
Establishing gender-specific reference values is important for improving the accuracy
of clinical interpretation.
Objective: To investigate gender differences in motor and sensory nerve conduction
parameters among healthy adults.
Methods: A study was carried out on 50 individuals who were in good health,
comprising 25 men and 25 women aged between 18 and 40 years, and with no past
record of neurological or systemic illnesses. The participants underwent standardized
assessments of nerve conduction, utilizing surface electrodes on various nerves such
as median, ulnar, tibial, common peroneal, and sural. Different nerve conduction
parameters like motor and sensory distal latencies, amplitudes, conduction speeds, and
F-wave latencies were measured and then the data was analysed to compare the results
between males and females using suitable statistical methods.
Results: Men showed notably longer distal motor and sensory latencies and extended
F-wave latencies in comparison to women. Women displayed quicker nerve
conduction speeds and greater sensory nerve action potential amplitudes, especially in the arms. Many of these variances were statistically significant, suggesting a steady impact of gender on peripheral nerve conduction metrics. Conclusion: The gender of healthy adults plays a crucial role in affecting the characteristics of peripheral nerve conduction. Typically, women have quicker nerve conduction and shorter latencies than men, while men tend to have longer distal and F-wave latencies. These results emphasize the importance of developing normative reference values specific to gender to improve the precision of nerve conduction tests and reduce the risk of
misinterpretation in clinical neurophysiology

D.R, , Ashwini V.