Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Milan, Italy.
Eur J Neurol. 2012 Jan;19(1):47-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03421.x. Epub 2011 May 7.
Recently, ultrasound (US) has been used to assess the peripheral nervous system; however, there is no real study about its possible significant role in routine practice. Our study aims to assess the contribution of US as a routine tool in a neurophysiological laboratory.
The study assesses 130 patients who presented clinical suspicion of peripheral nerve diseases, excluding motor neuron disease, radiculopathy, hereditary and acquired polyneuropathy. All patients were clinically, neurophysiologically and sonographically assessed in the same session by the same neurologist/neurophysiologist. To avoid interpretation bias, two independent and blinded clinicians, different than the examiners performing electrodiagnosis and US, reviewed clinical, neurophysiological and US findings (also data about follow-up, when available) and classified the contribution of US as follows: Contributive (US had influence on the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies), Confirming (US confirmed the clinical and neurophysiological diagnosis), Non-Confirming (US findings were normal) and Incorrect (US findings led to incorrect diagnosis).
US impacted, namely modified the diagnostic and therapeutic path in 42.3% of cases (55 patients); US had a confirmatory role in 40% (52 patients); US did not confirm clinical and neurophysiological diagnosis in 17.7% (23 cases); no incorrect US findings were observed.
US complements neurophysiological assessment even in routine practice, and this confirms the increasing interest in US for a multidimensional evaluation of peripheral nerve system diseases.
最近,超声(US)已被用于评估周围神经系统;然而,目前尚无关于其在常规实践中可能具有重要作用的真正研究。我们的研究旨在评估 US 作为神经生理实验室常规工具的贡献。
该研究评估了 130 名临床疑似患有周围神经疾病的患者,不包括运动神经元疾病、神经根病、遗传性和获得性多发性神经病。所有患者均由同一位神经科医生/神经生理学家在同一时段进行临床、神经生理学和超声评估。为避免解释偏差,两位独立且盲法的临床医生(不同于进行电诊断和超声检查的检查者)审查了临床、神经生理学和超声检查结果(还包括随访数据,如有),并将 US 的贡献分为以下几类:有贡献(US 对诊断和治疗策略有影响)、确认(US 确认了临床和神经生理学诊断)、无确认(US 发现正常)和不正确(US 发现导致不正确的诊断)。
US 影响了诊断和治疗路径,即改变了 42.3%(55 例)患者的诊断和治疗路径;US 具有 40%(52 例)的确认作用;US 未确认临床和神经生理学诊断的占 17.7%(23 例);未观察到不正确的 US 发现。
US 补充了神经生理学评估,即使在常规实践中也是如此,这证实了人们对 US 用于周围神经系统疾病的多维评估越来越感兴趣。