Selection and Utilization of Imaging Studies for Disorders of the Lumbar Spine

Herzog, Richard J.

doi:10.1016/s1047-9651(18)30728-9

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11,15 Electrodiagnostic studies such as electromyography (EMG) and sensory nerve or dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs) may be of use in determining if anatomic findings are physiologically important. While some consider DSEPs to be of more value than EMG,24 others uestion the role of DSEPs in…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Correctable lumbar SS symptoms can be difficult to diagnose accurately by imaging alone because both CT and MR may yield false-positive anatomic findings. 11,15 Electrodiagnostic studies such as electromyography (EMG) and sensory nerve or dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs) may be of use in determining if anatomic findings are physiologically important. While some consider DSEPs to be of more value than EMG,24 others uestion the role of DSEPs in The literature on DSEPs from 1980 through this writing consists of fewer than 20 studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in the diagnosis of lumbosacral spinal stenosis: Comparison with imaging studies

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs) and computerized tomography/magnetic resonance (CT and/or MR) images were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate their relationship in the diagnosis of lumbosacral spinal stenosis (SS). Of 155 patients referred for DSEPs with a clinical suspicion of lumbosacral SS, 58 met the inclusion criteria. DSEP abnormality was defined as: (1) N1 latency absent or greater than 2.5 SD; (2) side-to-side latency difference greater than 2 SD; (3) amplitudes greater than 2 SD below the mean; or (4) amplitude ratio greater than 2 SD. Involvement of two or more DSEP levels by any of the above criteria was labeled multiple root disease (MRD). Involvement of one level was labeled single root disease (SRD). Images were reviewed independently by a neuroradiologist. Results revealed 54 subjects with SS by imaging; 42 had MRD and 8 had SRD by DSEPs. Sensitivity for MRD and SS was 78%, and for MRD plus SRD and SS was 93%.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%