Objective To investigate diagnostic usefulness of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEP) in the evaluation of lumbar radiculopathy using stimulation intensity lower than conventional stimulation intensity. Method: Fifty-seven patients with low back pain were studied with DSEP and needle electromyography (EMG). The radiculopathy was diagnosed by lumbar MRI or operative findings. The DSEP study was performed with stimulation intensity of 1.0×, 1.5×, 2.5× sensory threshold, respectively. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of DSEP and needle EMG in the evaluation of L5 radiculopathy. Results: Radiological and operative findings revealed unilateral herniated disc and L5 root compression in 38 patients (66.7%). Nineteen patients had no significant L5 root compression. The sensitivity and specificity of abnormality were 68.4% and 78.9% in 1.0× sensory threshold stimulation; 71.1%, 78.9% in 1.5× sensory threshold stimulation; and 44.7%, 84.2% in 2.5× sensory threshold stimulation, respectively. Whereas they were 55.2% and 100% in needle EMG. Conclusion: DSEP using low stimulus intensity showed higher sensitivity in the diagnosis of L5 radilculopathy, and DSEP might provide additional diagnostic usefulness in the evaluation of patients with suspected L5 radiculopathy. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2007; 31: 341-345)
Objective: The purpose of the this study was to determine whether pain location indicated in pain drawings was related to the specific lumbo-sacral radiculopathy.
Method: The study group consisted of 153 patients (62 men, 91 women) complaining low back pain with or without radiating pain. Nerve conduction study and electromyographic evaluation were performed for the diagnostic purpose. Chi-square test and multivariate stepwise discriminant analysis were used to identify the patients with radiculopathy on the basis of their pain drawings.
Results: There was significant relationship between pain location indicated in the pain drawing and the lumbar radiculopathy (p<0.05). In patient without the anterolateral thigh pain, the positivity of S1 radiculopathy was high. In patients with anterolateral thigh and leg pain without posterior thigh pain, the positivity of L5/S1 radiculopathy was high. For predicting the level of the lesion there were three discriminant functions (p<0.05). Patients with S1 radiculopathy showed negative correlation with anterolateral thigh pain. L5/S1 radiculopathy showed negative correlation with posterior thigh pain but were predicted by pain drawing on anterolateral lower leg.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that pain drawings may be helpful in identifying specific radiculopathy. As with any evaluation, the drawings should be considered in combination with findings from other diagnostic methods and interpreted with caution and in light of the full clinical picture.