Eivind Hasvik1, Anne Julsrud Haugen2, Lars Grøvle2. 1. E. Hasvik, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway. 2. A. J. Haugen, L. Grøvle, Department of Rheumatology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frequency with which sensory disturbances occur in patients with radicular leg pain and disc herniation is not well known, and the efficacy of tests to identify such changes are not firmly established. The presence of sensory disturbances is a key sign of nerve root involvement and may contribute to the diagnosis of a lumbar disc herniation, identify patients for referral to spinal imaging and surgery, and improve disease classification. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought: (1) to determine the frequency with which abnormal sensory findings occur in patients with lumbar disc herniation-related radicular pain, using a standard neurological sensory examination; (2) to determine what particular standard sensory test or combination of tests is most effective in establishing sensory dysfunction; and (3) to determine whether a more detailed in-depth sensory examination results in more patients being identified as having abnormal sensory findings. METHODS: Between October 2013 and April 2016, 115 patients aged 18 to 65 years referred to secondary health care with radicular leg pain and disc herniation were considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the study. Based on these inclusion criteria, 79% (91) were found eligible. Ten percent (11) were excluded because of other illness that interfered with the study purpose, 3% (3) because of cauda equina syndrome, 2% (2) because of spinal stenosis, 2% (2) because of prior surgery at the same disc level, and 2% (2) because of poor Norwegian language skills. Three percent (4) of the patients did not want to participate in the study. Of the 91 eligible patients, 56% (51) consented to undergo a comprehensive clinical examination and were used for analysis here. The sample for the purposes of the present study was predetermined at 50. These patients were first examined by a standard procedure, including sensory assessment of light touch, pinprick, vibration, and warmth and cold over the back and legs. Second, an in-depth semiquantitative sensory testing procedure was performed in the main pain area to assess sensory dysfunction and improve the detection of potential positive sensory signs, or sensory gain of function more precisely. Sensory loss was defined as sensations experienced as distinctly reduced in the painful side compared with the contralateral reference side. In contrast, sensory gain was defined as sensations experienced as abnormally strong, unpleasant, or painful and distinctly stronger than the contralateral side. Ambiguous test results were coded as a normal response to avoid inflating the findings. The proportions of abnormal findings were calculated for each sensory modality and for all combinations of the standard examination tests. RESULTS: The standard examination identified at least one abnormal finding in 88% (45 of 51) of patients. Sensory loss was present in 80% (41), while sensory gain was present in 35% (18). The combination of pinprick and light touch identified all patients who were classified as having abnormal findings by the full standard examination. The semiquantitative procedure identified an additional three patients with an abnormal finding. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the combination of pinprick and light touch assessment is an adequate minimal approach for diagnostic and classification purposes in patients with lumbar radicular pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.
BACKGROUND: The frequency with which sensory disturbances occur in patients with radicular leg pain and disc herniation is not well known, and the efficacy of tests to identify such changes are not firmly established. The presence of sensory disturbances is a key sign of nerve root involvement and may contribute to the diagnosis of a lumbar disc herniation, identify patients for referral to spinal imaging and surgery, and improve disease classification. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought: (1) to determine the frequency with which abnormal sensory findings occur in patients with lumbar disc herniation-related radicular pain, using a standard neurological sensory examination; (2) to determine what particular standard sensory test or combination of tests is most effective in establishing sensory dysfunction; and (3) to determine whether a more detailed in-depth sensory examination results in more patients being identified as having abnormal sensory findings. METHODS: Between October 2013 and April 2016, 115 patients aged 18 to 65 years referred to secondary health care with radicular leg pain and disc herniation were considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the study. Based on these inclusion criteria, 79% (91) were found eligible. Ten percent (11) were excluded because of other illness that interfered with the study purpose, 3% (3) because of cauda equina syndrome, 2% (2) because of spinal stenosis, 2% (2) because of prior surgery at the same disc level, and 2% (2) because of poor Norwegian language skills. Three percent (4) of the patients did not want to participate in the study. Of the 91 eligible patients, 56% (51) consented to undergo a comprehensive clinical examination and were used for analysis here. The sample for the purposes of the present study was predetermined at 50. These patients were first examined by a standard procedure, including sensory assessment of light touch, pinprick, vibration, and warmth and cold over the back and legs. Second, an in-depth semiquantitative sensory testing procedure was performed in the main pain area to assess sensory dysfunction and improve the detection of potential positive sensory signs, or sensory gain of function more precisely. Sensory loss was defined as sensations experienced as distinctly reduced in the painful side compared with the contralateral reference side. In contrast, sensory gain was defined as sensations experienced as abnormally strong, unpleasant, or painful and distinctly stronger than the contralateral side. Ambiguous test results were coded as a normal response to avoid inflating the findings. The proportions of abnormal findings were calculated for each sensory modality and for all combinations of the standard examination tests. RESULTS: The standard examination identified at least one abnormal finding in 88% (45 of 51) of patients. Sensory loss was present in 80% (41), while sensory gain was present in 35% (18). The combination of pinprick and light touch identified all patients who were classified as having abnormal findings by the full standard examination. The semiquantitative procedure identified an additional three patients with an abnormal finding. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the combination of pinprick and light touch assessment is an adequate minimal approach for diagnostic and classification purposes in patients with lumbar radicular pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.
Authors: David Walk; Nalini Sehgal; Tobias Moeller-Bertram; Robert R Edwards; Ajay Wasan; Mark Wallace; Gordon Irving; Charles Argoff; Misha-Miroslav Backonja Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: G Cruccu; C Sommer; P Anand; N Attal; R Baron; L Garcia-Larrea; M Haanpaa; T S Jensen; J Serra; R-D Treede Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Eivind Hasvik; Anne Julsrud Haugen; Stacey Haukeland-Parker; Stein Arne Rimehaug; Johannes Gjerstad; Lars Grøvle Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Tamara S Morgan; William A Abdu; Harry Herkowitz; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Dyveke T Demant; Karen Lund; Jan Vollert; Christoph Maier; Märtha Segerdahl; Nanna B Finnerup; Troels S Jensen; Søren H Sindrup Journal: Pain Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: D Scott Kreiner; Steven W Hwang; John E Easa; Daniel K Resnick; Jamie L Baisden; Shay Bess; Charles H Cho; Michael J DePalma; Paul Dougherty; Robert Fernand; Gary Ghiselli; Amgad S Hanna; Tim Lamer; Anthony J Lisi; Daniel J Mazanec; Richard J Meagher; Robert C Nucci; Rakesh D Patel; Jonathan N Sembrano; Anil K Sharma; Jeffrey T Summers; Christopher K Taleghani; William L Tontz; John F Toton Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: P Nettelbladt; L Hansson; C G Stefansson; L Borgquist; G Nordström Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 1993-07 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Benjamin Crettaz; Martin Marziniak; Peter Willeke; Peter Young; Dirk Hellhammer; Astrid Stumpf; Markus Burgmer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 3.240