Literature DB >> 2820066

Neurophysiologic investigation of patients with spinal stenosis.

K E Johnsson, I Rosén, A Udén.   

Abstract

To study the role of neurographic, electromyographic, and psychophysic examinations when diagnosing spinal stenosis, the authors studied 64 patients (mean age, 64 years) with myelographically verified spinal stenosis. Sixteen patients showed signs of total occlusion of the dural sack. Twenty-four patients with spinal claudication but with normal myelograms constituted a comparison group (mean age, 57 years). Normal reference values were obtained from 50 men aged 28-63 years. In spinal stenosis with total occlusion, bilateral neurogenic changes were registered in 87.5%, without total occlusion in 81%, and in spinal claudication with a myelogram of normal width in 29%. The corresponding frequencies of multisegmental EMG abnormalities were 94%, 75%, and 21%, respectively. Motor conduction velocity was normal in spinal stenosis except in cases with total occlusion. High thresholds were found to vibration and temperature changes in the legs, much like in patients with polyneuropathy. However, polyneuropathy was found in only a minority of the patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 2820066     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198706000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  7 in total

Review 1.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jon Lurie; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-01-04

Review 2.  Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Jay S Grider; Jason E Pope; Tim J Lamer; Sayed E Wahezi; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Steven Falowski; Reda Tolba; Jay M Shah; Natalie Strand; Alex Escobar; Mark Malinowski; Anjum Bux; Navdeep Jassal; Jennifer Hah; Jacqueline Weisbein; Nestor D Tomycz; Jessica Jameson; Erika A Petersen; Dawood Sayed
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.832

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

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Karen S J Yamakawa; Christopher Parres; Anthony Chiodo; Henry Tong
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 2.298

4.  Lumbar spinal stenosis: assessment of cauda equina involvement by electrophysiological recordings.

Authors:  D Egli; O Hausmann; M Schmid; N Boos; V Dietz; A Curt
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2007-04-11       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 5.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Fabio Zaina; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Eugene Carragee; Stefano Negrini
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-29

6.  ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study.

Authors:  Christy Tomkins-Lane; Markus Melloh; Jon Lurie; Matt Smuck; Michele C Battié; Brian Freeman; Dino Samartzis; Richard Hu; Thomas Barz; Kent Stuber; Michael Schneider; Andrew Haig; Constantin Schizas; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Anne F Mannion; Lukas Staub; Christine Comer; Luciana Macedo; Sang-Ho Ahn; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Danielle Sandella
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.241

7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging versus Electrophysiologic Tests in Clinical Diagnosis of Lower Extremity Radicular Pain.

Authors:  E G Hasankhani; F Omidi-Kashani
Journal:  ISRN Neurosci       Date:  2013-01-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.