Haig A J, LeBreck D B, Powley S G
Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Milwauke, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):715-21.
This was a case series with intervention performed by masked investigators.
To determine values for normal subjects on quantified needle electromyography of the paraspinal muscles compared with a previous sample of patients with clear evidence of radiculopathy.
Diagnosis of radicular back pain is difficult, even with modern imaging studies, partly due to the large percentage of imaging abnormalities in asymptomatic persons. Electromyography has been shown to be as sensitive as imaging studies in diagnosing radicular pain. An electromyographic study of the low back has never been done in normal subjects. We have previously anatomically validated and clinically demonstrated a method of quantitative needle electromyography in the paraspinal muscles called paraspinal mapping.
Thirty-five subjects free of back pain or polyneuropathy were intermixed with volunteers referred for electromyography of radicular back pain. One electrodiagnostician punctured the skin at five predetermined locations and obtained paraspinal mapping scores in one of these. An electromyographer who was masked to the study's nature then performed a complete paraspinal mapping study. A total "sensitivity" score was compared to scores of previously tested patients who had pain complaints and clear evidence for radiculopathy on either radiologic or traditional electromyographic studies.
Mean score in normal subjects was 1.11 (SD 1.49). Mean score for abnormal subjects averaged 12.18 (SD 12.03). Differences between examiners were insignificant.
Normal persons have few, if any electromyographic abnormalities in the paraspinal muscles. This is in contrast to computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or myelographic results in normal subjects. Persons with radiculopathy have significantly different scores. Needle electromyographic examination of the paraspinal muscles is useful in distinguishing false-positive radiologic studies.
这是一个由蒙面研究者进行干预的病例系列研究。
与先前有明确神经根病证据的患者样本相比,确定正常受试者椎旁肌定量针极肌电图的数值。
即使有现代影像学检查,神经根性背痛的诊断仍很困难,部分原因是无症状者中影像学异常的比例很高。肌电图已被证明在诊断神经根性疼痛方面与影像学检查一样敏感。正常受试者从未进行过低腰背肌电图研究。我们之前在解剖学上验证并在临床上证明了一种在椎旁肌进行定量针极肌电图的方法,称为椎旁肌电图描记法。
35名无背痛或多神经病的受试者与因神经根性背痛接受肌电图检查的志愿者混合。一名电诊断医生在五个预定位置穿刺皮肤,并在其中一个位置获得椎旁肌电图描记法评分。然后,一名对研究性质不知情的肌电图检查人员进行完整的椎旁肌电图描记法研究。将总“敏感性”评分与先前测试的有疼痛主诉且在放射学或传统肌电图研究中有明确神经根病证据的患者的评分进行比较。
正常受试者的平均评分为1.11(标准差1.49)。异常受试者的平均评分为12.18(标准差12.03)。检查者之间的差异不显著。
正常人群的椎旁肌肌电图异常很少,如果有的话。这与正常受试者的计算机断层扫描、磁共振成像或脊髓造影结果形成对比。患有神经根病的人的评分有显著差异。椎旁肌的针极肌电图检查有助于区分影像学检查的假阳性结果。