Literature DB >> 19627886

A prospective, masked 18-month minimum follow-up on neurophysiologic changes in persons with spinal stenosis, low back pain, and no symptoms.

Andrew J Haig1, Karen S J Yamakawa, Christopher Parres, Anthony Chiodo, Henry Tong.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe neurophysiologic changes over time in persons with and without spinal complaints and to assess whether paraspinal denervation predicts change in stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical course.
DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, masked trial.
SETTING: University spine program. PARTICIPANTS: Persons aged 55 to 80 years, screened for polyneuropathy and determined on clinical examination to have spinal stenosis, mechanical low back pain, or no spinal symptoms.
INTERVENTIONS: A comprehensive codified history was obtained and subjects underwent physical examination, ambulation testing, masked electrodiagnostic testing including paraspinal mapping, and MRI, repeated at greater than 18 months. This study presents detailed technical information and additional analyses not reported previously. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Change in electrodiagnostic findings. Among persons with clinical stenosis, relationship of change in paraspinal mapping scores to MRI findings and clinical changes.
RESULTS: Of 149 initial subjects, 83 (79.3% of eligible subjects) repeated testing at 20 (+/-2 SDs) months. No significant change in limb muscle spontaneous activity or motor unit pathology was noted in any group. In 23 persons with initial diagnosis of stenosis, paraspinal mapping electromyography related to change in diagnosis over time (analysis of variance F = 3.77, P = .037), but not to most initial magnetic resonance imaging measurements or to change in spinal canal diameter.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical spinal stenosis is neurophysiologically stable in most persons. Paraspinal electromyographic changes reflect large changes in clinical course, but neither neurophysiologic nor clinical changes relate to change in spinal geometry over 20 months.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19627886      PMCID: PMC2735230          DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2008.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PM R        ISSN: 1934-1482            Impact factor:   2.298


  40 in total

1.  Neurophysiologic investigation of patients with spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K E Johnsson; I Rosén; A Udén
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Lumbar stenosis. An electromyographic evaluation.

Authors:  R E Jacobson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation.

Authors:  S D Boden; D O Davis; T S Dina; N J Patronas; S W Wiesel
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Electrophysiological studies of intermittent claudication in lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  M Kondo; H Matsuda; S Kureya; A Shimazu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Electrodiagnostic examination, back pain and entrapment of posterior rami.

Authors:  M A Fisher; D Kaur; J Houchins
Journal:  Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1985 Mar-Apr

6.  Electromyographic findings in the intrinsic muscles of normal feet.

Authors:  P F Gatens; M A Saeed
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Electromyography in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  A M Seppalainen; H Alaranta; J Soini
Journal:  Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1981-01

8.  The natural history of root entrapment syndrome.

Authors:  R W Porter; C Hibbert; C Evans
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The Pain Disability Index: psychometric properties.

Authors:  Raymond C Tait; John T Chibnall; Steven Krause
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  Paraspinal electromyography that compares concentric with monopolar needles: a blinded study.

Authors:  Henry C Tong; Irene A Young; John Koch; Andrew J Haig; Karen S J Yamakawa; Agnes Wallbom
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.159

View more
  2 in total

1.  Electrophysiological Characteristics of Cervical Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Yanrong Wang; Yinping Zhan; Xiaolan Jin; Dandan Shen; Ling Wang; Tingting Cao; Hong Jiang
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2022-06-26       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Symmetry of paraspinal muscle denervation in clinical lumbar spinal stenosis: support for a hypothesis of posterior primary ramus stretching?

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Zachary London; Danielle E Sandella
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 3.217

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.