Lumbosakral radikulopatili hastaların tanısında dermatomal duyusal uyarılmış potansiyeller
Amaç: Lumbosakral radikülopatilerde elektrofizyolojik incelemelerin, radyolojik incelemeler ve klinik muayene bulguları ile ilişkisi ve tanıya katkılarının karşılaştırılması planlanmıştır. Yöntem: Çalışmaya, bel ve bacak ağrısı yakınması ile başvuran, lumbosakral manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) incelemelerinde kök basısı saptanarak ameliyat edilmek üzere yatırılan 30 hasta (9 Kadın, 21 Erkek) ve nörolojik muayenesi normal olan 21 (11 Kadın, 10 Erkek ) gönüllü denek alındı. Çalışmaya alınanlara iki yanlı tibial ve peroneal sinirlerin motor, yüzeyel peroneal ve sural sinirlerin duyusal ileti incelemeleri, tibial sinir F yanıtı, soleus H refleksi, tibial sinir duyusal uyarılmış potansiyel (DUP) ve L3, L4, L5 ve S1 dermatomal DUP (DDUP) yanıtları ve hasta grubuna, bunlara ek olarak iğne EMG incelemesi yapıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmaya alınan 30 hastanın MRG incelemelerinde disk herniasyonu olup, 17’sinin (%58.8) iğne EMG incelemesinde MRG ile uyumlu radikülopati bulguları saptandı. L5/S1 disk herniasyonu olan 12 hastanın 7’sinde (%58.3) soleus H refleksi yanıtları patolojikti. DDUP incelemelerinde 27 hastada (%90) patoloji saptanırken, bu inceleme sadece 7 hastada (%23.3) MRI ile uyumlu bulundu. 10 hastada tibial DUP anormalliği saptanırken, 6 hastada (%20) anormallik MRI ile uyumluydu. Sonuç: Araştırma sonuçları, lumbosakral radikülopatisi olan hastalarda lezyonu lokalize etmede en sensitif elektrofizyolojik inceleme yönteminin iğne EMG incelemesi olduğunu, S1 radikülopatili hastalarda soleus H refleks incelemesinin iğne EMG incelemesine benzer bir sensitivitesi olduğunu, DDUP incelemelerinin sensitivitesi yüksek olmakla birlikte subklinik tutulumu da saptadığından spesifitesinin düşük olduğunu göstermiştir.
Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in the diagnosis of patients with lumbosacral radiculopathies
Objective: To assess the association between electrophysiological studies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), clinical findings and its contribution to the diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathies. Method: 30 patients (9 F, 21 M) with back and leg pain and with root compression detected only at one level on MRI were admitted to the study. All patients were under the care of neurosurgery clinic in our hospital. 21 (11 F, 10 M) healthy volunters were admitted to the study as the control group. Bilaterally tibial and peroneal nerve motor, superficial peroneal and sural nerve sensory conduction studies, tibial F response, soleus H reflex, tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) and L3, L4, L5 and S1 dermatomal SEP (DSEP) responses were evaluated in all participants. Additionally, needle electromyography (EMG) examinations were performed in the patient group. Results: All of the 30 patients had lumbosacral disc herniation on MRI, 17 (58,8%) of them had radiculopathy by needle EMG consistent with MRI findings. 7 (58,3%) of 12 patients who had L5/S1 disc herniation, had abnormal soleus H reflex responses. Although DSEP responses of 27 (90%) patients showed an abnormality, only 7 (23,3%) patients’ findings were consistent with MRI. Ten patients had tibial SEP abnormalities, however 6 (20%) of these patients’ findings were in concordance with MRI. Conclusions: We suggest that needle EMG is the most sensitive electrophysiological examination to localize the radiculopathy in patients with lumbosacral disc herniation. The sensitivity of soleus H reflex is similar to the needle EMG findings, especially in patients with S1 radiculopathy. Although the sensitivity of DSEP examinations was found to be high, spesifity was found to be low due to the detected subclinical involvement.
___
- 1. Liveson JA. Peripheral Neurology. Case Studies in Electrodiagnosis. Second ed, Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1991; 40-44.
- 2. Oh SJ. Principles of Clinical Electromyography. Case Studies. Baltimore: Williams&Wilkins, 1998; 215-265.
- 3. Dumitru D, Zwarts MJ. Radiculopathies: In Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts M (editors). Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Second ed, Philadelphia: Hanley&Belfus, Inc., 2002, 713-776.
- 4. Ertekin C. Santral ve Periferik EMG. Anatomi-Fizyoloji-Klinik. Meta Basım, İzmir, 2006, 301-342.
- 5. Tullberg T, Svanborg E, Isacsson J, Grane P. A Preoperative and Postoperative Study of the Accuracy and Value of Electrodiagnosis in Patients with Lumbosacral Disk Herniation. Spine 1993; 18:837-842.
- 6. Owen JH, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG. Innervation Pattern of Dorsal Roots and Their Effects on the Spesificity of Dermatomal Somatosesory Evoked Potentials. Spine 1993; 18:748-754.
- 7. Kimura J. Assesment of Individual Nerves. In: Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle. Principles and Practice. Second Ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1989, 103-138.
- 8. Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ. Nerve Conduction Studies: In Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts M (editors). Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Second ed., Philadelphia: Hanley&Belfus, Inc., 2002, 159-223.
- 9. Oh SJ. Anatomical Guide for Common Nerve Conduction Studies. In: Clinical Electromyography. Nerve Conduction Studies. Third Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2003, 54-78.
- 10. Kimura J. H, T, Masseter, and Other Reflexes. In: Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle. Principles and Practice. Second Ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1989, 356-374.
- 11. Dumitru D, Zwarts MJ. Special Nerve Conduction Techniques: In Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts M (editors). Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Second ed. Philadelphia: Hanley&Belfus, Inc., 2002, 225-256.
- 12. Oh SJ. Reflex Tests. In: Clinical Electromyography. Nerve Conduction Studies. Third Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2003, 390-446.
- 13. Kimura J. The F Wave. In: Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle. Principles and Practice. Second Ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1989, 332-355.
- 14. Oh SJ. Special Nerve Conduction Tecniques. In: Clinical Electromyography. Nerve Conduction Studies. Third Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2003, 447-503.
- 15. Dumitru D, Zwarts MJ. Needle Electromyography: In Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts M (editors). Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Second ed. Philadelphia: Hanley&Belfus, Inc., 2002, 257-291.
- 16. Dumitru D, Robinson LR, Zwarts MJ. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials: In Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts M (editors). Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Second ed., Philadelphia: Hanley&Belfus, Inc., 2002; 357-413.
- 17. Oh SJ. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials in Peripheral Nerve Lesions. In: Clinical Electromyography. Nerve Conduction Studies. Third ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2003, 551-581.
- 18. Walk D, Fisher MA, Doundoulakis SH, Hemmati M. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials in the Evaluation of Lumbosacral Radiculopathy. Neurology 1992; 42:1197-1202.
- 19. Aminoff MJ, Goodin DS, Parry GJ, Barbaro NM, Weinstein PR, Rosenblum ML. Electrophysiological Evaluation of Lumbosacral Radiculopathies: Electromyography, Late Responses, and Somatosensory Evoked Potentials. Neurology 1985; 35:1514-1518.
- 20. Eisen A. Electrodiagnosis of Radiculopathies. Neurol Clin 1985; 3:495-510.
- 21. Katifi HA, Sedgwick EM. Evaluation of the Dermatomal Somatosensory Evoked Potential in the Diagnosis of Lumbosacral- root Compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50:1204-1210.
- 22. Aminoff MJ, Goodin DS, Barbaro NM, Weinstein PR, Rosenblum ML. Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in unilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy. Ann Neurol 1985;17:171-176.
- 23. Dumitru D, Dreyfuss P. Dermatomal/Segmental Somatosensory Evoked Potential Evaluation of L5/S1 Unilateral/Unilevel Radiculopathies. Muscle Nerve 1996; 19:442-449.