
To determine the diagnostic efficacy of late responses and of magnetic stimulation in the electrodiagnostic evaluation of lumbosacral radiculopathies, 42 patients with acute monoradiculopathies of L5 or S1 were examined. We performed conventional nerve conduction studies, F-wave studies, needle electrode examination (NEE) and magnetic stimulation. The results were compared with a control group of 36 persons. In the patients with weakness, we found a diagnostic sensitivity for NEE of 90% in L5 and of 80% in S1. F-waves had the same sensitivity as NEE in the patients with weakness and were more sensitive in the group of patients without weakness (L5 80%, S1 67%). Magnetic stimulation had a sensitivity of 40% in all groups. There were also abnormalities of NEE and of F-wave studies in the patients with abnormal magnetic stimulation. It is concluded that NEE is the single most effective method in acute LSR and that F-wave studies are able to provide complementary information. Magnetically evoked motor nerve root stimulation was not found of clinically relevant diagnostic value.
Adult, Muscle Weakness, Electromyography, Electrodiagnosis, Nerve Compression Syndromes, Neural Conduction, Action Potentials, Peroneal Nerve, Middle Aged, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Sensitivity and Specificity, Electrodes, Implanted, Magnetics, Sciatica, Linear Models, Reaction Time, Humans, Neurons, Afferent, Prospective Studies, Radiculopathy
Adult, Muscle Weakness, Electromyography, Electrodiagnosis, Nerve Compression Syndromes, Neural Conduction, Action Potentials, Peroneal Nerve, Middle Aged, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Sensitivity and Specificity, Electrodes, Implanted, Magnetics, Sciatica, Linear Models, Reaction Time, Humans, Neurons, Afferent, Prospective Studies, Radiculopathy
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 17 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
