Electrodiagnostics for Low Back Pain




Low back pain with radiating pain to the hip, buttock, or limb is the most common reason for electrodiagnostics referral. Electrodiagnostics is used to assess for lumbosacral radiculopathy potentially underlying low back pain. It serves as an extension of the clinical history and physical examination, and complements neuroimaging. Common low back pathologies amenable to electrodiagnostic evaluation include lumbosacral disk herniation and spinal stenosis. Electrodiagnostics may aid in the decision-making process when considering surgical management, and may aid in patient selection. The usefulness of electrodiagnostics is maximized when performed for the appropriate patient, and when the findings are properly interpreted.


Low back pain is one of the most common chief complaints that bring a person to seek medical attention, and it is also one of the most common reasons for electrodiagnostic referral. The main purpose of electrodiagnostics in the setting of low back pain is to physiologically assess the presence of a lumbosacral radiculopathy. Lumbosacral radiculopathies most frequently occur at L5 (48%), S1 (30%), L4 (17%), L3 (5%), S2 (4%), and L2 (3%). Electrodiagnostics and neuroimaging complement each other, with the former assessing nerve function and the latter nerve structure. Although radiculopathy is a common reason for electrodiagnostic referral, the value of electrodiagnostics in assessing radicular symptoms is highly variable. Nevertheless, electrodiagnostics continues to be a useful tool for the assessment of low back pain particularly when it is performed and interpreted properly.


In this article, electrodiagnostics specifically refers to electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCS). Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) are not discussed in this article. Electrodiagnostics is not performed in isolation, but is guided by the patient’s history and is used as an extension of the clinical examination. The following aspects of electrodiagnostics in the context of low back pain are discussed here: objectives, patient selection, general principles, findings in common low back pain conditions, sensitivity and specificity, preoperative benefits, and limitations of electrodiagnostics.


Objectives of electrodiagnostics for low back pain


The primary objectives of electrodiagnostics for low back pain are to confirm the presence of a lumbosacral radiculopathy and to exclude other peripheral nerve conditions that may mimic radiculopathy, such as plexopathy, polyneuropathy, or entrapment neuropathy. The secondary objectives of electrodiagnostics are to determine the following: the nerve root levels involved, the types of underlying nerve abnormalities (whether axonal loss or demyelination, with or without conduction block), the severity, and the chronicity of radiculopathy. It is not the objective of electrodiagnostics to serve as an initial screening test for low back pain.




Patient selection


The ideal patient who would most benefit from electrodiagnostics referral is either one who is a potential surgical candidate whose physical examination findings of radiculopathy do not correlate with imaging studies, or one who has a neuroimaging abnormality with an unclear functional significance.


Patients with radicular weakness and pain that already correlate with the impingement level on neuroimaging may often be managed without electrodiagnostics. Patients with radicular pain and/or sensory changes but without objective motor findings often do not have detectable electrophysiologic changes on either EMG or NCS.




Patient selection


The ideal patient who would most benefit from electrodiagnostics referral is either one who is a potential surgical candidate whose physical examination findings of radiculopathy do not correlate with imaging studies, or one who has a neuroimaging abnormality with an unclear functional significance.


Patients with radicular weakness and pain that already correlate with the impingement level on neuroimaging may often be managed without electrodiagnostics. Patients with radicular pain and/or sensory changes but without objective motor findings often do not have detectable electrophysiologic changes on either EMG or NCS.




General principles of electrodiagnostics


The electrodiagnostic workup for lumbosacral radiculopathy generally includes performing an EMG of the limb and paraspinal muscles and NCS, including motor and sensory studies and late responses.


EMG


The most reliable of all available electrodiagnostic methods for detecting radiculopathy is the needle EMG. Although neuroimaging studies are usually diagnostic in the more common radiculopathies caused by structural lesions, they may be unremarkable in radiculopathies caused by infection, infiltration, demyelination, or infarction.


The diagnosis of radiculopathy through EMG is based on demonstrating evidence of ongoing denervation or chronic reinnervation in at least 2 muscles innervated by the same nerve root, but innervated by different peripheral nerves. EMG abnormalities must be in a myotomal distribution. Clinically weak muscles should be preferentially examined during EMG. Ongoing denervation is manifested by the presence of fibrillations, positive sharp waves, and reduced recruitment. Polyphasic motor unit action potentials (MUAPs) may be seen during the period of early reinnervation. Chronic reinnervation is manifested by the presence of MUAPs with long durations and large amplitudes. Not all muscles innervated by the involved root need to be abnormal on EMG. However, it is important to demonstrate that the muscles innervated by unaffected adjacent nerve roots do not have ongoing denervation or chronic reinnervation.


The optimal number of muscles that should be examined when screening for a lumbar radiculopathy is at least 5 lower extremity muscles plus a paraspinal muscle (for a total of 6 muscles). If the paraspinals cannot be reliably tested, then at least 8 nonparaspinal muscles must be examined. The muscles examined should be representative of the key myotomes on the extremity. Several investigators have published tables of muscles that show a high yield for detecting radiculopathy at specific root levels. If a particular root is already suspect based on clinical and radiographic data, then additional muscles innervated by that root but by different peripheral nerves should be examined. While the distribution of EMG abnormalities is expected to be in a myotomal pattern, the difficulty lies in the fact that most muscles are innervated by more than one root. Thus, it is sometimes impossible to determine electrophysiologically which of 2 contiguous roots is involved. For example, the L2, L3, and L4 roots overlap extensively in their muscular innervations. Furthermore, EMG cannot be used to localize the exact anatomic site of a pathologic condition because a single root may be compressed by a disk or osteophyte at more than one level.


For abnormalities to be seen on EMG, the underlying pathologic condition must involve motor axon loss. A purely sensory radiculopathy would have a normal EMG. Likewise, a purely demyelinating radiculopathy without axonal loss (which is rare) would also have a normal EMG. On the other hand, a demyelinating radiculopathy with conduction block would present clinically with weakness and the EMG would demonstrate decreased recruitment.


The paraspinal muscles should be examined during the radiculopathy workup. The presence of ongoing paraspinal denervation, in the form of fibrillations and positive sharp waves, is an important localizing finding because it indicates that the site of nerve root abnormality is proximal to the dorsal ramus takeoff, and thus situates the lesion at the root or the anterior horn cell level. Unfortunately, findings of paraspinal denervation do not help determine the precise segmental level of the lesion because there is much overlap in the innervation of these back muscles. Furthermore, the presence of paraspinal denervation must be interpreted carefully because this is also seen in patients with conditions other than radiculopathy, such as motor neuron diseases and after low back surgeries and injections. Abnormal spontaneous activity in the paraspinal muscles may occur up to 4 days after a lumbar puncture or myelography. Paraspinal EMG may be abnormal more than 3 years after lumbosacral surgery. Mild degrees of paraspinal denervation may be seen in normal asymptomatic individuals, likely reflecting root injury caused by normal age-related degeneration of the spine.


To further add to the confusion, about half of radiculopathies have normal paraspinal EMGs. One explanation is the possible fascicular sparing of fibers to the dorsal rami. Moreover, the absence of paraspinal denervation cannot totally exclude a radiculopathy, as the paraspinal muscles may have been spared in incomplete root lesions or the paraspinals may have already reinnervated in cases of chronic radiculopathies. There are also several technical issues that may hinder the detection of paraspinal denervation, such as difficulty of the patient to either relax or activate the back muscles during EMG, or simply sampling limitations.


Electrodiagnostics is a time-sensitive test; therefore, the timing of electrodiagnostics affects the results and their interpretation because of the natural history of radiculopathy. Soon after an acute nerve root injury, no abnormalities may be detected by electrodiagnostics except perhaps for reduced recruitment and/or abnormal late responses (H-reflex and F-wave). It may take 7 to 10 days for fibrillation potentials to appear in the paraspinal muscles and 3 to 6 weeks to appear in the limb muscles, with abnormal findings progressing in a proximal to distal manner. It may take 6 to 26 weeks for MUAPs to display variable configurations or polyphasia, indicating the start of reinnervation. Chronic reinnervation occurs months after injury and is manifested by the presence of MUAPs with long duration and large amplitude (so-called neuropathic MUAPs.) Reinnervation, like denervation, progresses in a proximal to distal manner. Reinnervation changes are first seen in the paraspinal and proximal limb muscles by around 3 months postinjury, and then are later seen in the distal muscles by around 6 months postinjury. Electrodiagnostics is better suited to diagnosing subacute radiculopathies (3 weeks to 3 months from onset) rather than acute or chronic radiculopathies. Thus, electrodiagnostics should ideally be performed at least 3 weeks from the onset of symptoms (not earlier) to allow time for most limb muscles to develop signs of axon loss (fibrillation potentials). Otherwise, electrodiagnostics performed too early may yield inconclusive results and may require subjecting the patient to another round of tests a few weeks later.


EMG by itself can already meet most of the secondary objectives of electrodiagnostics. EMG can determine the nerve roots involved by demonstrating the myotomal distribution of abnormalities. EMG abnormalities, such as abnormal spontaneous activity (fibrillations and positive sharp waves) and neuropathic MUAPs, substantiate the existence of an underlying axonal abnormality. The severity of the radiculopathy corresponds to the gradation of abnormal spontaneous activity present and the amount of MUAP dropout. The chronicity of the radiculopathy can be roughly estimated based on the proximal-distal distribution of abnormal EMG findings along an affected myotome, and based on the size of fibrillations (which are larger in newer lesions and smaller in older ones).


NCS


NCS are usually normal in radiculopathies. Nevertheless, it is necessary to perform NCS during a radiculopathy workup to exclude other conditions that may mimic radiculopathy, such as a plexopathy, polyneuropathy, or entrapment neuropathy. For example, when assessing for L5 radiculopathy it is important to rule out a peroneal (fibular) neuropathy at the fibular neck because both conditions may present with similar signs and symptoms (foot drop and numbness on the dorsum of the foot). The following NCS are commonly performed during a lumbosacral radiculopathy workup: sural and superficial peroneal (fibular) sensory studies, peroneal (fibular) and tibial motor studies (often with F-waves), and tibial H-reflexes.


Sensory studies


Sensory NCS are the most important part of the NCS during a radiculopathy workup. Sensory studies are almost always normal in compressive radiculopathies because the lesion usually lies proximal to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), thus sparing the integrity of the distal axon. A normal sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) in the same distribution as sensory signs and symptoms usually indicates a radiculopathy. Assessment of the SNAP helps differentiate a radiculopathy (normal SNAP) from a plexopathy or peripheral neuropathy (abnormal or absent SNAP). Although this is the general rule, there are exceptions wherein an absent SNAP does not necessarily rule out a radiculopathy. For example, an L5 radiculopathy may present with an absent superficial peroneal SNAP because in up to 40% of individuals the DRG is situated in a vulnerable intraspinal canal location. At the L5-S1 level, 40% to 65% of DRGs may be proximal to the intervertebral foramen and subject to compression. Sural SNAPs may be difficult to elicit in individuals older than 60 years, which happens to be the population in which lumbar spinal stenosis is most common.


Motor studies


The motor NCS are also usually normal in lumbosacral radiculopathies because only a portion of nerve fascicles within a nerve root trunk is injured in a radiculopathy, and because there is an overlap of root innervation. Rarely, the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude may be reduced when motor axon loss is severe, that is, when up to 50% of motor axons within a nerve trunk are already lost. CMAP amplitude is considered reduced when it is less than age-related norms, or if it is equal to or less than 50% of the corresponding CMAP amplitude on the contralateral limb. Axon loss may additionally result in slowed motor nerve conduction velocity and prolonged distal latency, especially if the largest, fastest fibers are affected, but it should never be so slow and so delayed as to stray into the demyelination range. It is always important to obtain the CMAP from a muscle that is actually innervated by the affected nerve roots, which may not always be the routinely examined distal CMAPs.


Late responses


Late responses, specifically the H-reflex and the F-wave, are part of the electrodiagnostic workup for radiculopathy. These tests are important because they assess the proximal and intraspinal segments of peripheral nerves. This is their main advantage over routine NCS, which only assess the more distal portions of peripheral nerves.


H-reflex


The H-reflex is named after Paul Hoffman who first evoked the response in 1918. It is a monosynaptic spinal reflex composed of an afferent 1a sensory nerve and an efferent alpha motor nerve. It is the electrodiagnostic equivalent of the clinical Achilles reflex. In the lower extremity, the H-reflex is elicited by stimulating the tibial nerve at the popliteal fossa and recording at the gastroc-soleus muscle. In this test, the S1 nerve root sensory and motor pathways are assessed. Typically the H-reflex with the shortest onset latency is recorded and compared against normal controls for height. The H-reflex with the shortest onset latency is usually associated with the largest amplitude as well. In the case of radiculopathies, side-to-side onset latency comparisons may be more important that absolute latency prolongations. Other investigators choose to measure either the H-reflex amplitude or H-amplitude ratio (abnormal H-amplitude divided by the contralateral H-amplitude).


An advantage over EMG is the H-reflex’s ability to diagnose early, acute S1 radiculopathy because the H-reflex becomes abnormal within days of an injury. On the other hand, the H-reflex has several limitations. It is not specific for radiculopathy and may become abnormal with a lesion anywhere along the course of the tibial and sciatic nerves, that is, anywhere along the sensory afferent, spinal synapse, or motor efferent pathways of the reflex. Abnormal H-reflexes are seen with any abnormality that depresses the Achilles reflex, including polyneuropathy, sciatic neuropathy, lumbosacral plexopathy, and S1 radiculopathy. The combination of an abnormal H-reflex and normal distal NCS cannot help differentiate between a radiculopathy and a plexopathy, but can only suggest a proximal lesion. Once the H-reflex is lost it may not return even with resolution of the clinical syndrome, and thus cannot differentiate an acute from a chronic S1 radiculopathy. In obese individuals the H-reflex may be technically difficult to elicit. The H-reflex in normal individuals decreases with age, and may be entirely absent in elderly individuals older than 60 years.


F-wave


The F-wave is named after the foot because it was first recorded from the intrinsic foot muscles. The F-wave is produced by antidromic activation of motor neurons. Only the motor pathways are assessed by the F-wave. An abnormal F-wave localizes a lesion in the proximal portion of the motor nerve when the routine distal motor NCS are normal. The F-wave can be elicited using any motor nerve in the upper or lower extremities. Commonly assessed lower extremity F-waves are from the peroneal (fibular) and tibial innervated muscles, such as the extensor digitorum brevis and abductor hallucis brevis, respectively. These muscles are supplied by the L5-S1 roots, which are often involved in radiculopathies.


The F-wave does have several limitations. It has a low overall diagnostic yield of 10% to 20% for radiculopathies, and there are several reasons for this. Any focal slowing within a short segment may be diluted by normal conduction along the rest of the motor nerve pathway, resulting in a still normal F-wave. Minimal F-wave latencies assess only the fastest conducting fibers; to see an increase in the minimal F-wave latency, a lesion needs to cause focal slowing that affects all fibers equally. Most radiculopathies involve only partial axonal loss and only rarely focal demyelination. F-waves are often normal in patients with suspected radiculopathy, and even when the F-waves are abnormal, such findings are inconsequential because the EMG will also by then be abnormal and will more definitively establish the diagnosis of radiculopathy.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Apr 19, 2017 | Posted by in PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION | Comments Off on Electrodiagnostics for Low Back Pain

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access