1. days apart. In case 4, however, despite the Patterns of conduction failure in the Guillain-Barre synsevere reductions in "M"A with wrist stimuladrome;FGA, Van Der Meche; J, Meulstee; M, Vermeulen; A, Kievit;Brain,1988
2. Proximal versus distal slowing of motor nerve tion at 5 (fig 2) and even 18 days, prompt recovery subsequently followed at 32 days strongly suggesting the previous terminal reduction in "M"A was largely explicable by conduction block in demyelinated nerve fibres rather than axonal degeneration. At the other extreme, inexcitable nerve carries the gloomy prospect of substantial axonal degeneration having taken place""'5 and unfortunately was subsequently borne out by our case 14. How well did our studies correspond with the pathology of GBS? Haymaker and Kernohan2' examined 50 fatal cases. The interval conduction velocity in the Guillain-Barresyndrome;Kimura, J.;Ann Neurol,1978
3. Sensory evoked potentials in Guillain-Barre polyneuropathy;Brown, W.F.; Feasby, T.E.;J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry,1984
4. Reversible proximal conduction block underlies rapid recovery in GuillainBarre syndrome;Berger, A.R.; Logigian, E.L.; Shahani, B.T.;Muscle Nerve,1988
5. The histological fine structure of perineurium;Burkel, W.E.;AnatRec,1967