Suppr超能文献

来自皮节刺激的体感诱发电位作为L5和S1神经根病的一项指标。

Somatosensory evoked potentials from dermatomal stimulation as an indicator of L5 and S1 radiculopathy.

作者信息

Rodriquez A A, Kanis L, Rodriquez A A, Lane D

出版信息

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987 Jun;68(6):366-8.

PMID:3036037
Abstract

Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potential (DSEP) results for L5 and S1 were contrasted with electromyography (EMG) results for 50 patients referred to the electrodiagnosis laboratory to document the presence of radiculopathy. Stimulation sites were over the dorsum of the foot at the distal fifth metatarsal for the S1 dermatome and at the web space of the first and second toe for the L5 dermatome. Recordings were made at PZ reference to FZ. Spinal cord or cauda responses could not be detected. Both EMG and DSEP were contrasted to myelography or lumbar computerized tomography results on 31 patients. Side-to-side amplitude differences proved too variable to be of use. Sixty-five percent of abnormal DSEP results were on the basis of side-to-side latency criterion, and 35% were on the basis of an absent unilateral response. When compared to EMG and anatomic studies DSEP showed less accuracy and sensitivity. The specificity of the two tests was similar. Using both positive EMG and anatomic studies to define radiculopathy, there were 27% false negative tests and 9% false positive tests. An 86% root level correlation was found between EMG and DSEP. Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potential studies add little to the diagnosis of radiculopathy.

摘要

对50例转诊至电诊断实验室的患者,对比其L5和S1皮节体感诱发电位(DSEP)结果与肌电图(EMG)结果,以证实神经根病的存在。刺激部位在S1皮节为足背第5跖骨远端,在L5皮节为第1和第2趾蹼间隙。记录点为PZ参考FZ。未检测到脊髓或马尾神经反应。对31例患者的EMG和DSEP结果与脊髓造影或腰椎计算机断层扫描结果进行了对比。双侧振幅差异变化太大,无法使用。65%的异常DSEP结果基于双侧潜伏期标准,35%基于单侧反应缺失。与EMG和解剖学研究相比,DSEP的准确性和敏感性较低。两种检查的特异性相似。采用阳性EMG和解剖学研究来定义神经根病时,假阴性检查率为27%,假阳性检查率为9%。EMG和DSEP之间的神经根水平相关性为86%。皮节体感诱发电位研究对神经根病的诊断帮助不大。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验