The Accuracy of the Physical Examination for the Diagnosis of Midlumbar and Low Lumbar Nerve Root Impingement

Division of Research, New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 01/2011; 36(1):63-73. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c953cc
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cross-sectional study with prospective recruitment. OBJECTIVE.: To determine the accuracy of the physical examination for the diagnosis of midlumbar nerve root impingement (L2, L3, or L4), low lumbar nerve root impingement (L5 or S1) and level-specific lumbar nerve root impingement on magnetic resonance imaging, using individual tests and combinations of tests.
The sensitivity and specificity of the physical examination for the localization of nerve root impingement has not been previously studied.
Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for the ability of individual tests and test combinations to predict the presence or absence of nerve root impingement at midlumbar, low lumbar, and specific nerve root levels.
LRs ≥5.0 indicate moderate to large changes from pre-test probability of nerve root impingement to post-test probability. For the diagnosis of midlumbar impingement, the femoral stretch test (FST), crossed FST, medial ankle pinprick sensation, and patellar reflex testing demonstrated LRs ≥5.0 (LR ∞). LRs ≥5.0 were observed with the combinations of FST and either patellar reflex testing (LR 7.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-21) or the sit-to-stand test (LR ∞). For the diagnosis of low lumbar impingement, the Achilles reflex test demonstrated an LR ≥5.0 (LR 7.1; 95% CI 0.96-53); test combinations did not increase LRs. For the diagnosis of level-specific impingement, LRs ≥5.0 were observed for anterior thigh sensation at L2 (LR 13; 95% CI 1.8-87); FST at L3 (LR 5.7; 95% CI 2.3-4.4); patellar reflex testing (LR 7.7; 95% CI 1.7-35), medial ankle sensation (LR ∞), or crossed FST (LR 13; 95% CI 1.8-87) at L4; and hip abductor strength at L5 (LR 11; 95% CI 1.3-84). Test combinations increased LRs for level-specific root impingement at the L4 level only.
Individual physical examination tests may provide clinical information that substantially alters the likelihood that midlumbar impingement, low lumbar impingement, or level-specific impingement is present. Test combinations improve diagnostic accuracy for midlum-bar impingement.

  • Source
    • "Six studies with a total population of 849 patients used radiology as the reference standard to detect a lumbar disc herniation. Three studies evaluated the ability of these tests to diagnose disc herniation at any lumbar spine level [20] [42] [44], whereas the other three studies investigated neurological tests to diagnose specific levels of disc herniation [35] [37] [43]. In the former three studies, sensory testing data were only able to be pooled in a meta-analysis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Disc herniation is a common low back pain (LBP) disorder, and several clinical test procedures are routinely employed in its diagnosis. The neurological examination that assesses sensory neuron and motor responses has historically played a role in the differential diagnosis of disc herniation, particularly when radiculopathy is suspected; however, the diagnostic ability of this examination has not been explicitly investigated. PURPOSE: To review the scientific literature to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the neurological examination to detect lumbar disc herniation with suspected radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: Six major electronic databases were searched with no date or language restrictions for relevant articles up until March 2011. All diagnostic studies investigating neurological impairments in LBP patients because of lumbar disc herniation were assessed for possible inclusion. Retrieved studies were individually evaluated and assessed for quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and where appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies that investigated three standard neurological examination components, sensory, motor, and reflexes, met the study criteria and were included. Eight distinct meta-analyses were performed that compared the findings of the neurological examination with the reference standard results from surgery, radiology (magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and myelography), and radiological findings at specific lumbar levels of disc herniation. Pooled data for sensory testing demonstrated low diagnostic sensitivity for surgically (0.40) and radiologically (0.32) confirmed disc herniation, and identification of a specific level of disc herniation (0.35), with moderate specificity achieved for all the three reference standards (0.59, 0.72, and 0.64, respectively). Motor testing for paresis demonstrated similarly low pooled diagnostic sensitivities (0.22 and 0.40) and moderate specificity values (0.79 and 0.62) for surgically and radiologically determined disc herniation, whereas motor testing for muscle atrophy resulted in a pooled sensitivity of 0.31 and the specificity was 0.76 for surgically determined disc herniation. For reflex testing, the pooled sensitivities for surgically and radiologically confirmed levels of disc herniation were 0.29 and 0.25, whereas the specificity values were 0.78 and 0.75, respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratios for all neurological examination components ranged between 1.02 and 1.26. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that neurological testing procedures have limited overall diagnostic accuracy in detecting disc herniation with suspected radiculopathy. Pooled diagnostic accuracy values of the tests were poor, whereby all tests demonstrated low sensitivity, moderate specificity, and limited diagnostic accuracy independent of the disc herniation reference standard or the specific level of herniation. The lack of a standardized classification criterion for disc herniation, the variable psychometric properties of the testing procedures, and the complex pathoetiology of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy are suggested as possible reasons for these findings.
    The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society 03/2013; 13(6). DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.007 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A motorized microscope is used as optical sensor for automated microassembly. To achieve the required resolution range an automated autofocus system is indispensable. Since we are equipped to acquire and process microscopic images we follow a passive approach to autofocusing based on image processing. In a typical microassembly situation there are non-planar objects and several different focal planes. In our autofocus system, focal planes are determined by means of an image power measure and coarse/fine tuning. Position markers are employed to assign non-planar objects a well defined focal plane. For the identification of the different focal planes we make use of our a priori knowledge about the assembly process and the objects to be observed. In this way we are able to distinguish single, well defined focus locations. This approach to autofocusing is particularly valuable for applications in microscopy going beyond the conventional sample inspection
    Image Processing, 1996. Proceedings., International Conference on; 10/1996
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Initial process trials have concentrated on making continuous groove structures. This allows the mechanical and beam stability of the electron beam mastering system to be fully evaluated. The process conditions for different resists and developers have been evaluated. However, unlike e-beam lithography, for optical disc mastering it is essential to be able to control the slope of feature edges in thin resist layers making the choice of resist and process conditions even more critical
    Optical Data Storage, 2000. Conference Digest; 02/2000
Show more


Available from