Montaner-Cuello Alberto, Caudevilla-Polo Santos, Rodríguez-Mena Diego, Ciuffreda Gianluca, Pardos-Aguilella Pilar, Albarova-Corral Isabel, Pérez-Rey Jorge, Bueno-Gracia Elena
Department of Physiatry and Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Zaragoza, Calle Domingo Miral S/N, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
PhysiUZerapy: Health Sciences Research Group, University of Zaragoza, Calle Domingo Miral S/N, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Jun 14;14(12):1258. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14121258.
(1) Background: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy involves anamnesis, an assessment of sensitivity and strength, diagnostic imaging-usually magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-and electrodiagnostic testing (EDX), typically electromyography (EMG), and electroneurography (ENG). MRI evaluates the structures supporting the spinal cord, while EDX evaluates root functionality. The present study aimed to analyze the concordance of MRI and EDX findings in patients with clinically suspected radiculopathy. Additionally, we investigated the comparison between these two reference tests and various clinical variables and questionnaires. (2) Methods: We designed a prospective epidemiological study of consecutive cases with an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, and double-blind nature following the STROBE guidelines, encompassing 142 patients with clinical suspicion of lumbosacral radiculopathy. (3) Results: Of the sample, 58.5% tested positive for radiculopathy using EDX as the reference test, while 45.8% tested positive using MRI. The comparison between MRI and EDX in the diagnosis of radiculopathy in patients with clinical suspicion was not significant; the overall agreement was 40.8%. Only the years with symptoms were comparatively significant between the positive and negative radiculopathy groups as determined by EDX. (4) Conclusion: The comparison between lumbar radiculopathy diagnoses in patients with clinically suspected pathology using MRI and EDX as diagnostic modalities did not yield statistically significant findings. MRI and EDX are complementary tests assessing different aspects in patients with suspected radiculopathy; degeneration of the structures supporting the spinal cord does not necessarily imply root dysfunction.
(1) 背景:腰骶神经根病的诊断涉及病史采集、感觉和肌力评估、诊断性影像学检查(通常为磁共振成像(MRI))以及电诊断测试(EDX),典型的是肌电图(EMG)和神经电图(ENG)。MRI评估脊髓的支撑结构,而EDX评估神经根功能。本研究旨在分析临床疑似神经根病患者中MRI和EDX检查结果的一致性。此外,我们还研究了这两种参考检查与各种临床变量和问卷之间的比较。(2) 方法:我们按照STROBE指南设计了一项对连续病例的前瞻性流行病学研究,具有观察性、描述性、横断面性和双盲性,纳入了142例临床疑似腰骶神经根病的患者。(3) 结果:以EDX作为参考检查时,样本中有58.5%的患者神经根病检测呈阳性,而以MRI作为参考检查时,阳性率为45.8%。在临床疑似患者中,MRI和EDX对神经根病的诊断比较无显著差异;总体一致性为40.8%。仅症状持续年限在EDX判定的神经根病阳性和阴性组之间具有相对显著性差异。(4) 结论:以MRI和EDX作为诊断方式,对临床疑似神经根病患者的腰椎神经根病诊断比较未得出具有统计学意义的结果。MRI和EDX是评估疑似神经根病患者不同方面的互补检查;脊髓支撑结构的退变不一定意味着神经根功能障碍。