Correlation of clinical presentation with intraoperative level diagnosis in lower lumbar disc herniation

Co-existence of L5-S1 disc herniation and conus medullaris ependymoma

INTRODUCTION

The lumbar disc herniations are seen very common than spinal ependymomas in the neurosurgery polyclinic routine.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

In our case, both pathologies were seen at the most frequently located levels compatible with the literature.

Aim of this case report is, to remind once more that, different pathologies can be found at the same time in a single patient; differential diagnosis must be done very carefully.

DISCUSSION

The routine Computed Tomography (CT) imaging for low back pain can not show the conus medullaris pathology. Spinal tumors or other similar pathologies should be kept in mind for differential diagnosis. A good medical history and a good physical examination must be completed before the final diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Viewing of spinal canal with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) will be useful for the patients who we intend to do disc surgery.

Accuracy of physical examination for chronic lumbar radiculopathy

Background

Clinical examination of patients with chronic lumbar radiculopathy aims to clarify whether there is nerve root impingement. The aims of this study were to investigate the association between findings at clinical examination and nerve root impingement, to evaluate the accuracy of clinical index tests in a specialised care setting, and to see whether imaging clarifies the cause of chronic radicular pain.

Methods

A total of 116 patients referred with symptoms of lumbar radiculopathy lasting more than 12 weeks and at least one positive index test were included. The tests were the straight leg raising test, and tests for motor muscle strength, dermatome sensory loss, and reflex impairment. Magnetic resonance imaging (n = 109) or computer tomography (n = 7) were imaging reference standards. Images were analysed at the level of single nerve root(s), and nerve root impingement was classified as present or absent. Sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) for detection of nerve root impingement were calculated for each individual index test. An overall clinical evaluation, concluding on the level and side of the radiculopathy, was performed.

Results

The prevalence of disc herniation was 77.8%. The diagnostic accuracy of individual index tests was low with no tests reaching positive LR >4.0 or negative LR <0.4. The overall clinical evaluation was slightly more accurate, with a positive LR of 6.28 (95% CI 1.06–37.21) for L4, 1.74 (95% CI 1.04–2.93) for L5, and 1.29 (95% CI 0.97–1.72) for S1 nerve root impingement. An overall clinical evaluation, concluding on the level and side of the radiculopathy was also performed, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with area under the curve (AUC) calculation for diagnostic accuracy of this evaluation was performed.

Conclusions

The accuracy of individual clinical index tests used to predict imaging findings of nerve root impingement in patients with chronic lumbar radiculopathy is low when applied in specialised care, but clinicians’ overall evaluation improves diagnostic accuracy slightly. The tests are not very helpful in clarifying the cause of radicular pain, and are therefore inaccurate for guidance in the diagnostic workup of the patients. The study population was highly selected and therefore the results from this study should not be generalised to unselected patient populations in primary care nor to even more selected surgical populations.

Diagnostic performance of the medial hamstring reflex in L5 radiculopathy

Background:

An avalanche of literature exists on almost every aspect of lumbar disc pathology but very limited studies have quantified the diagnostic performance of elements of clinical examination in predicting disc level, meticulously collated the reflex changes in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) as well as assessed the diagnostic performance of the medial hamstring reflex (MHR). Our study underscores the diagnostic performance of the MHR in L5 radiculopathy comparing its diagnostic power to that of the knee and ankle reflexes.

Methods:

One hundred consecutive patients operated for de novo LDH in our department between January and December 2011 were prospectively followed-up. A nested case control study was designed from our cohort to assess the performance of the MHR in L5 sciatica. All patients were examined by two independent examiners pre-operatively for the MHR and the results collated and correlated to MRI and intra-operative findings.

Results:

The MHR has a diagnostic performance intermediate to that of knee and ankle reflexes. The percentages correctly classified were respectively: 86%, 79% and 67% for the knee, MHR and ankle reflexes. The MHR is highly precise with an intra-rater reliability of 100% and inter-rater repeatability of above 90% and test-retest reproducibility of 100%.

Conclusion:

The MHR hitherto described as elusive has a high diagnostic performance and is a valid neurologic test that should be included in the routine neurologic examination of patients with suspected L5 radiculopathy.

Heuristic map of myotomal innervation in humans using direct intraoperative nerve root stimulation

Object

Considerable overlap exists in nerve root innervation of various muscles. Knowledge of myotomal innervation is essential for the interpretation of neurological examination findings and neurosurgical decision-making. Previous studies relied on cadaveric dissections, animal studies, and cases with anomalous anatomy. This study investigates the myotomal innervation patterns of cervical and lumbar nerve roots through in vivo stimulation during surgeries for spinal decompression.

Methods

Patients undergoing cervical and lumbar surgeries in which nerve roots were exposed in the normal course of surgery were included in the study. Electromyography electrodes were placed in the muscle groups that are generally accepted to be innervated by the roots under study. These locations included levels above and below the spinal levels undergoing decompression. After decompression, a unipolar neural stimulator probe was placed directly on the nerve root sleeve and constant current stimulation in increments of 0.1 mA was performed. Current was raised until at least a 100 μV amplitude–triggered electromyographic response was noted in 1 or more muscles. All muscles that responded were recorded.

Results

A total of 2295 nerve root locations in 129 patients (mean age 57 ± 15 years, 47 female [36%]) were stimulated, and 1589 stimulations met quality criteria and were analyzed. Four hundred ninety-five stimulations were performed on roots contributing to the cervical and brachial plexus from C-3 to T-1 (31.2%), and 1094 (68.8%) were roots in the lumbosacral plexus between L-1 and S-2. The authors were able to construct a statistical map of the contributions of each cervical and lumbosacral nerve root for the set of muscle groups monitored in the protocol. In many cases the range of muscles innervated by a specific root was broader than previously described in textbooks.

Conclusions

This is the largest data set of direct intraoperative nerve root stimulations during decompressive surgery, demonstrating the relative contribution of root-level motor input to various muscle groups. Compared with classic neuroanatomy, a significant number of roots innervate a broader range of muscles than expected, which may account for the variability of presentation between patients with identical number and location of compressed roots.

Assessment of nerve involvement in the lumbar spine: agreement between magnetic resonance imaging, physical examination and pain drawing findings

Background

Detection of nerve involvement originating in the spine is a primary concern in the assessment of spine symptoms. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the diagnostic method of choice for this detection. However, the agreement between MRI and other diagnostic methods for detecting nerve involvement has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this diagnostic study was to evaluate the agreement between nerve involvement visible in MRI and findings of nerve involvement detected in a structured physical examination and a simplified pain drawing.

Methods

Sixty-one consecutive patients referred for MRI of the lumbar spine were - without knowledge of MRI findings - assessed for nerve involvement with a simplified pain drawing and a structured physical examination. Agreement between findings was calculated as overall agreement, the p value for McNemar's exact test, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values.

Results

MRI-visible nerve involvement was significantly less common than, and showed weak agreement with, physical examination and pain drawing findings of nerve involvement in corresponding body segments. In spine segment L4-5, where most findings of nerve involvement were detected, the mean sensitivity of MRI-visible nerve involvement to a positive neurological test in the physical examination ranged from 16-37%. The mean specificity of MRI-visible nerve involvement in the same segment ranged from 61-77%. Positive and negative predictive values of MRI-visible nerve involvement in segment L4-5 ranged from 22-78% and 28-56% respectively.

Conclusion

In patients with long-standing nerve root symptoms referred for lumbar MRI, MRI-visible nerve involvement significantly underestimates the presence of nerve involvement detected by a physical examination and a pain drawing. A structured physical examination and a simplified pain drawing may reveal that many patients with "MRI-invisible" lumbar symptoms need treatment aimed at nerve involvement. Factors other than present MRI-visible nerve involvement may be responsible for findings of nerve involvement in the physical examination and the pain drawing.

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain with leg pain (sciatica) may be caused by a herniated intervertebral disc exerting pressure on the nerve root. Most patients will respond to conservative treatment, but in carefully selected patients, surgical discectomy may provide faster relief of symptoms. Primary care clinicians use patient history and physical examination to evaluate the likelihood of disc herniation and select patients for further imaging and possible surgery.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the performance of tests performed during physical examination (alone or in combination) to identify radiculopathy due to lower lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back pain and sciatica;(2) To assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on diagnostic performance.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic databases for primary studies: PubMed (includes MEDLINE), EMBASE, and CINAHL, and (systematic) reviews: PubMed and Medion (all from earliest until 30 April 2008), and checked references of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies if they compared the results of tests performed during physical examination on patients with back pain with those of diagnostic imaging (MRI, CT, myelography) or findings at surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the quality of each publication with the QUADAS tool, and extracted details on patient and study design characteristics, index tests and reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We presented information on sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for all aspects of physical examination. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were computed for subsets of studies showing sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 cohort studies (median N = 126, range 71 to 2504) and three case control studies (38 to100 cases). Only one study was carried out in a primary care population. When used in isolation, diagnostic performance of most physical tests (scoliosis, paresis or muscle weakness, muscle wasting, impaired reflexes, sensory deficits) was poor. Some tests (forward flexion, hyper-extension test, and slump test) performed slightly better, but the number of studies was small. In the one primary care study, most tests showed higher specificity and lower sensitivity compared to other settings.Most studies assessed the Straight Leg Raising (SLR) test. In surgical populations, characterized by a high prevalence of disc herniation (58% to 98%), the SLR showed high sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.95) with widely varying specificity (0.10 to 1.00, pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40). Results of studies using imaging showed more heterogeneity and poorer sensitivity. The crossed SLR showed high specificity (pooled estimate 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.94) with consistently low sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.35).Combining positive test results increased the specificity of physical tests, but few studies presented data on test combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used in isolation, current evidence indicates poor diagnostic performance of most physical tests used to identify lumbar disc herniation. However, most findings arise from surgical populations and may not apply to primary care or non-selected populations. Better performance may be obtained when tests are combined.