Sex Differences in Pudendal Somatosensory Evoked Potentials

Overview

Journal Tech Coloproctol

Date 2013 Dec 21

PMID 24357448

Citations 5

Authors

G Pelliccioni

V Piloni

D Sabbatini

P Fioravanti

O Scarpino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) of the pudendal nerve are a well-established diagnostic tool for the evaluation of pelvic floor disorders. However, the possible influence of sex differences on response latencies has not been established yet. The aim of this study was to standardize the procedures and to evaluate possible effects of gender differences on anal and penile/clitoral SEPs.

Methods: The anal and dorsal penile/clitoral SEPs were recorded in 84 healthy subjects (40 males and 44 females; mean age 47.9 ± 16.6 years, range 16-81 years; mean height 168.3 ± 20.3 cm, range 155-187 cm). Pudendal SEPs were evoked with a bipolar surface electrode stimulating the clitoris or the base of the penis and the anal orifice and recorded using scalp electrodes. The latency of the first positive component (P1) was measured. The effect and possible interaction of (a) stimulation site and (b) gender on the two variables was explored by multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

Results: The examination was well tolerated and a reproducible waveform of sufficient quality was obtained in all the subjects examined. In the female subjects, a mean cortical P1 latency of 37.0 ± 2.6 and 36.4 ± 3.2 ms for anal and clitoral stimulation, respectively, was found. In the male subjects, the cortical latencies were 38.0 ± 3.5 ms for the anal stimulation and 40.2 ± 3.7 ms for the penile stimulation. At MANOVA, a statistically significant main effect of stimulation site and gender as well as a significant interaction between the two variables was found.

Conclusions: Anal and dorsal penile/clitoral SEPs represent a well-tolerated and reproducible method to assess the functional integrity of the sensory pathways in male and female subjects. Obtaining sex-specific reference data, by individual electrophysiological testing, is highly recommended because of significant latency differences between males and females, at least as far as penile/clitoral responses are concerned.

Citing Articles

[Neurological diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction].

Kliesch U, Reitz A Urologie. 2025; 64(2):149-156.

PMID: 39806173 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-024-02495-0.

Midline sacral meningeal cysts: Neurophysiology abnormalities and their correlation with pelvic sensory and visceral symptoms.

Cabrilo I, Hentzen C, Malladi P, Simeoni S, Amarenco G, Zaidman N Eur J Neurol. 2024; 32(1):e16530.

PMID: 39498736 PMC: 11622511. DOI: 10.1111/ene.16530.

To Explore the Diagnostic Value of Bulbocavernosus Muscle Reflex and Pudendal Somatosensory Evoked Potentials for Diabetic Neurogenic Bladder.

Nan N, Chen Q, Chong T Dis Markers. 2022; 2022:6096326.

PMID: 36157205 PMC: 9492348. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6096326.

Low test-retest reliability of a protocol for assessing somatosensory cortex excitability generated from sensory nerves of the lower back.

Ehrenbrusthoff K, Ryan C, Martin D, Milnik V, Dinse H, Gruneberg C Front Hum Neurosci. 2022; 16:898759.

PMID: 36082228 PMC: 9445117. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.898759.

New method for early evaluation of clitoris innervation using clitoro-perineal reflex after feminizing genitoplasty in early childhood: a pilot-study.

Bidault V, Botto N, Paye-Jaouen A, Leger J, Josset-Raffet E, Martinerie L Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):7087.

PMID: 33782453 PMC: 8007626. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86434-5.

References

Bharucha A . Pelvic floor: anatomy and function. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2006; 18(7):507-19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2006.00803.x. View

Delodovici M, Fowler C . Clinical value of the pudendal somatosensory evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995; 96(6):509-15. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(95)00081-9. View

Haldeman S, BRADLEY W, Bhatia N, Johnson B . Pudendal evoked responses. Arch Neurol. 1982; 39(5):280-3. DOI: 10.1001/archneur.1982.00510170022006. View

Podnar S, Vodusek D . Protocol for clinical neurophysiologic examination of the pelvic floor. Neurourol Urodyn. 2001; 20(6):669-82. DOI: 10.1002/nau.1018. View

Jost W, Schimrigk K . Magnetic stimulation of the pudendal nerve. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994; 37(7):697-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF02054414. View

Haldeman S, BRADLEY W, Bhatia N . Evoked responses from the pudendal nerve. J Urol. 1982; 128(5):974-80. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)53306-6. View

Vodusek D . Pudendal SEP and bulbocavernosus reflex in women. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1990; 77(2):134-6. DOI: 10.1016/0168-5597(90)90027-b. View

Campbell Jr W, Ward L, Swift T . Nerve conduction velocity varies inversely with height. Muscle Nerve. 1981; 4(6):520-3. DOI: 10.1002/mus.880040609. View

Snooks S, Swash M . Abnormalities of the innervation of the urethral striated sphincter musculature in incontinence. Br J Urol. 1984; 56(4):401-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1984.tb05830.x. View

10.

Podnar S, Mrkaic M . Predictive power of motor unit potential parameters in anal sphincter electromyography. Muscle Nerve. 2002; 26(3):389-94. DOI: 10.1002/mus.10207. View

11.

Lefaucheur J . Neurophysiological testing in anorectal disorders. Muscle Nerve. 2005; 33(3):324-33. DOI: 10.1002/mus.20387. View

12.

Kaiser T, Jost W, Osterhage J, Derouet H, Schimrigk K . Penile and perianal pudendal nerve somatosensory evoked potentials in the diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2001; 13(2):89-92. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900520. View

13.

Podnar S, Vodusek D, Trsinar B, Rodi Z . A method of uroneurophysiological investigation in children. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997; 104(5):389-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-5597(97)00053-1. View

14.

Haldeman S, BRADLEY W, Bhatia N, Johnson B . Cortical evoked potentials on stimulation of pudendal nerve in women. Urology. 1983; 21(6):590-3. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(83)90199-1. View

15.

Podnar S . Neurophysiology of the neurogenic lower urinary tract disorders. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007; 118(7):1423-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.01.022. View

16.

Yang C, Kromm B . New techniques in female pudendal somatosensory evoked potential testing. Somatosens Mot Res. 2004; 21(1):9-14. DOI: 10.1080/0899022042000201254. View

17.

Cavalcanti G, Bruschini H, Manzano G, Nunes K, Giuliano L, Nobrega J . Pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials in normal women. Int Braz J Urol. 2008; 33(6):815-21. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382007000600010. View

18.

Blaivas J, Labib K, Bauer S, Retik A . A new approach to electromyography of the external urethral sphincter. J Urol. 1977; 117(6):773-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)58622-x. View

19.

Opsomer R, Guerit J, Wese F, Van Cangh P . Pudendal cortical somatosensory evoked potentials. J Urol. 1986; 135(6):1216-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)46040-x. View

20.

Remes-Troche J, Tantiphlachiva K, Attaluri A, Valestin J, Yamada T, Hamdy S . A bi-directional assessment of the human brain-anorectal axis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010; 23(3):240-8, e117-8. PMC: 3035753. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2010.01619.x. View