STUDY DESIGN: Observational case series. OBJECTIVE: To compare the pattern of distribution of radicular pain with published dermatome charts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Dermatomal charts vary and previous studies have demonstrated significant individual subject variation. METHODS: Patients with radiologically and surgically proven nerve root compression (NRC) caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc completed computerized diagrams of the distribution of pain and pins and needles. Ninety-eight patients had L5 compressions and 83 had S1 compressions. RESULTS: The distribution of pain and pins and needles did not correspond well with dermatomal patterns. Of those patients with L5 NRC, only 22 (22.4%) recorded any hits on the L5 dermatome on the front, and only 60 (61.2%) on the back with only 13 (13.3%) on both. Only 1 (1.0%) patient placed more than 50% of their hits within the L5 dermatome. Of those patients with S1 NRC, only 3 (3.6%) recorded any hits on the S1 dermatome on the front, and only 64 (77.1%) on the back with only 15 (18.1%) on both. No patients placed more than 50% of their hits within the S1 dermatome. Regarding pins and needles, 27 (29.7%) patients with L5 NRC recorded hits on the front alone, 27 (29.7%) on the back alone, and 14 (15.4%) on both. Nineteen (20.9%) recorded more than 50% of hits within the L5 dermatome. Three (3.6%) patients with S1 NRC recorded hits on the front alone, 44 (53.0%) on the back alone, and 18 (21.7%) on both. Twelve (14.5%) recorded more than 50% of hits within the S1 dermatome. CONCLUSION: Patient report is an unreliable method of identifying the anatomical source of pain or paresthesia caused by nerve root compression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational case series. OBJECTIVE: To compare the pattern of distribution of radicular pain with published dermatome charts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Dermatomal charts vary and previous studies have demonstrated significant individual subject variation. METHODS:Patients with radiologically and surgically proven nerve root compression (NRC) caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc completed computerized diagrams of the distribution of pain and pins and needles. Ninety-eight patients had L5 compressions and 83 had S1 compressions. RESULTS: The distribution of pain and pins and needles did not correspond well with dermatomal patterns. Of those patients with L5 NRC, only 22 (22.4%) recorded any hits on the L5 dermatome on the front, and only 60 (61.2%) on the back with only 13 (13.3%) on both. Only 1 (1.0%) patient placed more than 50% of their hits within the L5 dermatome. Of those patients with S1 NRC, only 3 (3.6%) recorded any hits on the S1 dermatome on the front, and only 64 (77.1%) on the back with only 15 (18.1%) on both. No patients placed more than 50% of their hits within the S1 dermatome. Regarding pins and needles, 27 (29.7%) patients with L5 NRC recorded hits on the front alone, 27 (29.7%) on the back alone, and 14 (15.4%) on both. Nineteen (20.9%) recorded more than 50% of hits within the L5 dermatome. Three (3.6%) patients with S1 NRC recorded hits on the front alone, 44 (53.0%) on the back alone, and 18 (21.7%) on both. Twelve (14.5%) recorded more than 50% of hits within the S1 dermatome. CONCLUSION:Patient report is an unreliable method of identifying the anatomical source of pain or paresthesia caused by nerve root compression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.