Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Simultaneous Intracellular Recording of a Lumbar Motoneuron and the Force Produced by its Motor Unit in the Adult Mouse In vivo
Published on: December 5, 2012
Minimal current intensity to elicit an evoked motor response cannot discern between needle-nerve contact and
Thomas Wiesmann1, Andreas Bornträger, Timon Vassiliou
1From the *Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Therapy, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany; †St. Luke's and Roosevelt Hospital Center, University Hospital of Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, New York; and ‡Institute of Medical Informatics, Biostatistics and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Background:
The ability of an evoked motor response (EMR) with nerve stimulation to detect intraneural needle placement reliably at low current intensity has recently been challenged. In this study, we hypothesized that current intensity is higher in needle-nerve contact than in intraneural needle placement.
Methods:
Brachial plexus nerves were exposed surgically in 6 anesthetized pigs. An insulated needle connected to a nerve stimulator was placed either with 1 mm distance to the nerve (control position), adjacent to nerve epineurium (needle-nerve contact position), or inside the nerve (intraneural position). Three pulse duration settings were applied in random fashion (0.1, 0.3, or 1.0 milliseconds) at each needle position. Starting at 0.0 mA, electrical current was increased until a minimal threshold current resulting in a specific EMR was observed. Fifty threshold current measurements were scheduled for each needle position-pulse duration setting.
Results:
Four hundred-fifty threshold currents in 50 peripheral nerves were measured. Threshold current intensities (mA) to elicit EMR showed small differences between the needle-nerve contact position [median (25th-75th percentiles); 0.1 milliseconds: 0.12 (0.08-0.18) mA; 0.3 milliseconds: 0.10 (0.06-0.12) mA; 1.0 milliseconds: 0.06 (0.04-0.10) mA] and the intraneural position (0.1 milliseconds: 0.12 [0.10-0.16] mA; 0.3 milliseconds: 0.08 [0.06-0.10] mA; 1.0 milliseconds: 0.06 [0.06-0.08] mA) that are neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant. Regardless of the pulse duration that was applied, the 98.33% confidence interval revealed a difference of at most 0.02 mA. However, threshold current intensities to elicit EMR were lower for the needle-nerve contact position than for the control position (0.1 milliseconds: 0.28 [0.26-0.32] mA; 0.3 milliseconds: 0.20 [0.16-0.22] mA; 1.0 milliseconds: 0.12 [0.10-0.14] mA).
Conclusions:
The confidence interval for differences suggests minimal current intensity to elicit a motor response that cannot reliably discern between a needle-nerve contact from intraneural needle placement. In addition, an EMR at threshold currents <0.2 mA (irrespective of the applied pulse duration) indicates intraneural needle placement or needle-nerve contact.
More Related Videos
12:13Assessing Primary Motor Cortex Excitability and Excitability Modulation by Pairing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with Electromyography
Published on: October 7, 2025
07:53Assessment of Neuromuscular Function Using Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation
Published on: September 13, 2015