Torres MMA, Galván GJÁ, Galindo TG

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 124-130
PDF size: 47.59 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Somatosensory dermatomal evoked potentials (SSDEP) are useful as a complementary diagnostic method in sensory cervical radiculopathy because the sensory pathway is assessed exclusively and sensory fibres are most susceptible to compression. Methods: An observational transverse comparative study of 20 patients of both sexes, 30 to 60 years of age with sensory cervical radiculopathy and normal electromyographic exam. SSDEP were preformed of C6, C7 and C8 nerve roots bilaterally and amplitudes, absolute latencies of N13 and interpeak N9-N13. Normal values were taken from de la Parra et al. The symptomatic side was compared to n on-symptomatic side. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive value were calculated. Results: 12 patients had two affected levels, 7 had three and 1 had one affected level, 7 had prolonged latencies of N13 and 19 of N9-N13. The average sensitivity of N13 latency and N9-N13 was of 30%, specificity was 97%. The positive predictive value of N13 and N9-N13 was 0.94 and the negative predictive value was 0.58. Conclusions: SSDEP have a low sensitivity and high specificity in the diagnosis of sensory cervical radiculopathy. The positive predictive value was high and the negative predictive value was moderate.

REFERENCES

1. Braddom RL. Assesment and treatment of cervical spine disorders. En: Physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2ª ed: United States of America: W.B. Saunders 2000: 762-91.

2. Lauder TD et al. Physical examination signs, clinical symptoms, and their relationship to electrodiagnostic findings and the presence of radiculopathy. Phys Med Rehab Clin N Am 2002; 13: 451-67.

3. Lipetz JS et al. Pathophysiology of inflammatory, degenerative, and compressive radiculopathies. Phys Med Rehab Clin N Am 2002; 13: 439-47.

4. Lauder TD, Dillingham TR, Andary M, Kumar S, Pezzin LE, Stephens RT et al. Predicting electrodiagnostic outcome in patients with upper limb symptoms: are the history and physical examination helpful? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 436-41.

5. Dillingham TR. Electrodiagnostic approach to patients with suspected radiculopathy. Phys Med Rehab Clin N Am 2002; 13: 567-85.

6. Peters J, Squires K. Introducción a las técnicas de potenciales evocados. En: Potenciales evocados en el hombre: 1-16.

7. Tsai TM et al. Value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in detecting acute nerve root injury: an experimental study with special emphasis on stimulus intensity. Spine 2005; 30(18): E540-6.

8. Talavera MR, Estañol B, López MM, García G, Corona V, Plascencia N et al. Registro de potenciales evocados somatosensoriales dermatómicos en punto de Erb, médula cervical y corteza cerebral en el diagnóstico de la radiculopatía cervical. Rev Neurol 2003; 36: 917-924.

9. Yamada T et al. Fundamental principles of somatosensory evoked potentials. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2004; 15: 19-42.

10. Chiou TF. Somatosensory evoked potentials. En: EMG Secrets United States of America: hanley and Belfus 2004: 79-86.

11. De la Parra ME. Estandarización de potenciales evocados dermatomales C6, C7 y C8 en individuos sanos. {tesis} Monterrey, NL Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León 2005.

12. Xu XM, Liu XB, Zheng CF. The diagnostic value of SEP in LDH and its forensic significance. {Article online, Pubmed.gov

13. Yazicioglu K, Ozgul A, Kalyon TA et al. The diagnostic value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in lumbosacral disc herniations: a critical approach. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1999; 39(3): 175-81.

14. Fisher MA. Electrophysiology of radiculopathies. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113(3): 317-35.

15. Leblhuber F, Reisecker F, Boehm-Jurkovic H, Witzmann A, Eisenhammer E. Diagnostic value of different electrophysiologic test in cervical disk prolapse. Neurology 1988; 38: 1879-81.