Cargando…

Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study

OBJECTIVES: Cervical nerve root compression can lead to radiculopathy in the arm. Some studies have reported low accuracy in determining the responsible nerve root in both cervical and lumbar regions. This prospective, observational, pragmatic study aimed to determine the accuracy of the clinical ev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Redebrandt, Henrietta N., Brandt, Christian, Hawran, Said, Bendix, Tom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995534/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35434382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.589
_version_ 1784684320156286976
author Redebrandt, Henrietta N.
Brandt, Christian
Hawran, Said
Bendix, Tom
author_facet Redebrandt, Henrietta N.
Brandt, Christian
Hawran, Said
Bendix, Tom
author_sort Redebrandt, Henrietta N.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Cervical nerve root compression can lead to radiculopathy in the arm. Some studies have reported low accuracy in determining the responsible nerve root in both cervical and lumbar regions. This prospective, observational, pragmatic study aimed to determine the accuracy of the clinical evaluation relative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in patients with arm radiculopathy. METHODS: Patients with neck pain and neck‐related arm pain referred to a spine unit underwent a standard clinical neurological examination and cervical spine MRI. The clinical examination required a judgment of the most likely cervical root involved, including the side. The Interobserver reproducibility was tested. Using MRI, the most likely nerve root involved according to radiology was assessed. RESULTS: Eighty‐three patients met the inclusion criteria. The Interobserver reproducibility between clinical evaluators was 58%, with a modest κ coefficient (0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18–0.47) classified only as "fair agreement.” Only 31% (95% CI: 22–42) of the 83 patients exhibited full agreement regarding the suspected cervical root as assessed via the clinical evaluation and MRI. In another 28% (95% CI: 18–39), the clinical evaluation identified an adjacent level to that identified on MRI. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical radiculopathy, the clinical‐neurological examination diagnosed the same in 31% or an adjacent cervical root in 28% of the patients in relation to the most affected cervical root on MRI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8995534
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89955342022-04-15 Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study Redebrandt, Henrietta N. Brandt, Christian Hawran, Said Bendix, Tom Health Sci Rep Original Research OBJECTIVES: Cervical nerve root compression can lead to radiculopathy in the arm. Some studies have reported low accuracy in determining the responsible nerve root in both cervical and lumbar regions. This prospective, observational, pragmatic study aimed to determine the accuracy of the clinical evaluation relative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in patients with arm radiculopathy. METHODS: Patients with neck pain and neck‐related arm pain referred to a spine unit underwent a standard clinical neurological examination and cervical spine MRI. The clinical examination required a judgment of the most likely cervical root involved, including the side. The Interobserver reproducibility was tested. Using MRI, the most likely nerve root involved according to radiology was assessed. RESULTS: Eighty‐three patients met the inclusion criteria. The Interobserver reproducibility between clinical evaluators was 58%, with a modest κ coefficient (0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18–0.47) classified only as "fair agreement.” Only 31% (95% CI: 22–42) of the 83 patients exhibited full agreement regarding the suspected cervical root as assessed via the clinical evaluation and MRI. In another 28% (95% CI: 18–39), the clinical evaluation identified an adjacent level to that identified on MRI. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical radiculopathy, the clinical‐neurological examination diagnosed the same in 31% or an adjacent cervical root in 28% of the patients in relation to the most affected cervical root on MRI. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8995534/ /pubmed/35434382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.589 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Redebrandt, Henrietta N.
Brandt, Christian
Hawran, Said
Bendix, Tom
Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study
title Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study
title_full Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study
title_fullStr Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study
title_full_unstemmed Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study
title_short Clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—A pragmatic study
title_sort clinical evaluation versus magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with radicular arm pain—a pragmatic study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995534/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35434382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.589
work_keys_str_mv AT redebrandthenriettan clinicalevaluationversusmagneticresonanceimagingfindingsinpatientswithradiculararmpainapragmaticstudy
AT brandtchristian clinicalevaluationversusmagneticresonanceimagingfindingsinpatientswithradiculararmpainapragmaticstudy
AT hawransaid clinicalevaluationversusmagneticresonanceimagingfindingsinpatientswithradiculararmpainapragmaticstudy
AT bendixtom clinicalevaluationversusmagneticresonanceimagingfindingsinpatientswithradiculararmpainapragmaticstudy