electrodiagnostic testing: blind spots, pitfalls, and overcall
DESCRIPTION
ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC TESTING: BLIND SPOTS, PITFALLS, AND OVERCALL. Timothy R. Dillingham, M.D. William J. Erdman Professor and Chairman Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Chief Medical Officer Penn Institute for Rehabilitation Medicine The University of Pennsylvania. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC TESTING: BLIND SPOTS, PITFALLS, AND
OVERCALL
Timothy R. Dillingham, M.D.William J. Erdman Professor and Chairman
Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationChief Medical Officer
Penn Institute for Rehabilitation MedicineThe University of Pennsylvania
OBJECTIVES: LIMITATIONS, PITFALLS
• Understand the important limitations in electrodiagnostic medicine
• Nerve conduction reference values not well standardized– Interrater reliability low without standards
• Understand EMG has modest sensitivity, but very high specificity – complementary to MRI
• Overcall in its many forms– Polyphasics, excessive testing, poor technique
NERVE CONDUCTION STUDIES
Nerve Conduction Challenges with Performance
• Skin prep minimizes impedance missmatch between active and reference electrodes
• Overstimulation of adjacent nerves
• Stimulus artifact – optimize ground
• Captured motor unit can look like a SNAP– Repeatability over three tracings– Be careful with averaging, can “Lock In” artifact
NERVE CONDUCTION PITFALLS
• Multiple Entrapments found, eg; median, ulnar– MOST LIKELY A POLYNEUROPATHY– STUDY A LOWER LIMB
NERVE CONDUCTION TESTING
– Too many tests, increasing probability of one false positive
– If you do 7 tests; 16% chance of a false positive– Probability of TWO false positives with 7 tests is
1%• Two findings is MUCH more compelling for a
diagnosis
– Use caution with overcalling with just one abnormality
NORMATIVE DATA: REFERENCE VALUES
• No standardization in our field regarding reference values and techniques for Nerve conduction testing
• Older norms plagued by;– Low sample sizes– Statistics not matching non- Gaussian
distributions– Analog machines– Poor study designs
NORMATIVE DATA:BETTER REFERENCE VALUES
AANEM NORMATIVE DATA TASKFORCE
• ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW:
• RALPH BUSCHBACHER, MD• NORMATIVE STUDIES IN THE 1990’s
AND 2000’s
• TOWER ABOVE MOST OF THE LITERATURE REGARDING NORMS
ELECTRODIAGNOSIS:PITFALLS
EMG
• Motor units can look like PSWs depending on geometric position of needle
• PSWs and FIBs are REGULARLY FIRING POTENTIALS
• Don’t move the needle too quickly, thrust and stop
• Caution calling radiculopathy based upon polyphasicity
EMG
• Do not assess motor unit morphology in PSM, no norms
• Cervical PSM low false positives IF:
• Lumbar PSM low false positives IF:– IMPOSE CRITERIA OF REGULAR FIRING
• PSM - ONLY LOOK FOR: FIBS, PSW, CRDs
PARASPINAL MUSCLE EMG: PREVALENCE OF FIBRILLATIONS IN NORMALS
• Dumitru, Diaz, and King (2001)
• Prospective study 50 normals L4/L5 levels
• Monopolar needle, recorded potentials
• Examined firing rate and rhythm
• Fibrillation inclusion criteria; regular firing rate
• 4% false positive fibrillations in paraspinal muscles
NEUROLOGICAL CONDITIONS MIMICKING CERVICAL RADICULOPATHY
• Entrapment/Compression neuropathies– Median, Radial, and Ulnar
• Brachial Neuritis• Multifocal Motor Neuropathy• Need Extensive EDX study to R/O other conditions• ALS if upper motor neuron signs and
atrophy/weakness• Myopathy, Myasthenia Gravis
NEUROLOGICAL CONDITIONS MIMICKING
LSR• Diabetic Amyotrophy
• Mononeuropathies– Femoral– Tibial– Common Peroneal
• Need Extensive EDX study
EMG SENSITIVITIES FOR LUMBOSACRAL
RADICULOPATHIES
• Varies widely
• Ranges from about 50% to 80%
• Various diagnostic standards
Study Sample size
Gold standard EMG sensitivity %
Lumbosacral radiculopathy
Weber and Albert [55]
Nardin et al [28]Kuruoglu et al [8]Khatri et al [56]Tonzola et al [57]Schoendinger [58]Knutsson [45]Young et al [3]Linden and Berlit [3]
4247
1009557
10020610019
Clinical+imaging HNP
Clinical
Clinical
Clinical
Clinical
Surgically proven
Surgically proven
Clinical an imaging
Myelography and CT
605586644956798478
EMG SENSITIVITY FOR CERVICAL
RADICULOPATHIES
• Varies widely
• About 50% to 70%
• Usually clinical and/or myelographic
Study Sample size
Gold standard EMG sensitivity %
Lumbosacral spinal
stenosis Hall et al [46] Johnsson et al [59]
6864
Clinical+myelogram
Clinical+myelogram
9288
Cervical radiculopathy Berger et al [60] Partanen et al [61] Leblhuber et al [9] So et al [62] Yiannikas et al [18] Tackman and Radu [15] Hong et al [63]
187724142020
108
Clinical
Intraoperative
Clinical+myelogram
Clinical
Clinical/radiographic
Clinical
Clinical
61676771509551
SPECIFICITYTong, Haig, Yamakawa, Miner. Amer J of PM&R 2006
• Assymptomatic volunteers 55 and older• Standardized monopolar EMG with blinded researcher
– Five leg muscles and paraspinal muscles• When only PSW and Fibs were considered abnormal
– By criteria: i)Two limb muscles plus PSM or ii)two limb muscles or iii) one limb and PSM
– 100% specificity• If use polyphasicity
– 97%, 90%, 87% specificity • EMG has excellent specificity for LSR
CAVEATS AND LIMITATIONS
• Needle EMG is not an effective screening test alone (Radiculopathy)
• MRI better screen for structural causes
• Better specificity-Diagnosis confirmation
• Motor Axonal loss is necessary for fibs
• A purely sensory radiculopathy will not result in FIBS on EMG
EMG
• Hard signs, better interrater reliability– FIBS– PSWs– CRDs
• Softer signs, more tendency to overcall– Polyphasicity– Reduced recruitment– Amplitudes of MUAPs
EMG
• Normative data for needle EMG are rare and old– Mostly for CONCENTRIC NEEDLES– Monopolar needles – Chu textbook
• Wide range of normal variation. The extremes are clearer– Amplitudes over 8K with reduced recruitment– Firing ratio of 20Hz
FALSE NEGATIVE (no fibs or PSW) ON EMG IN RADICULOPATHY
• Sensory root involvement only
• Motor root involvement without axonal loss– Demyelination, conduction block
• Motor axonal loss balanced with reinnervation
MUSCLE INJURY CAUSING FIBRILLATIONS
Partanen et al 1982 Muscle & Nerve
• Study of 43 patients with EMG before and after Muscle biopsy
• 50% had fibrillations 6-7 days after biopsy
• At 16 days 100% had fibrillations
• Fibrillations persisted up to 11 months post biopsy
Symptom Duration is not Related to Fibrillation Potentials
• Long held notion in the electrodiagnostic literature regarding radiculopathies
• Paraspinal (PSM) muscles denervate first, then more distal
• Reinnervation thought to occur first in PSM then distal
• No evidence to support this model
SYMPTOM DURATION AND EMG FIBRILLATIONS
Dillingham et al, 1998, 1998, 2000; Pezzin et al 1999
• Four separate investigations– Two retrospective (Cervical and Lumbosacral)– Two prospective (Cervical and Lumbosacral)
• Probability of finding fibrillations in a muscle (proximal or distal) was not related to symptom duration.
• Simplistic model of symptom duration doesn’t explain the complex pathophysiology of radiculopathies and their EMG correlates
PROGRESSION OF CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC CORD COMPRESSION
Bednarik et al Spine 2004
• Symptomatic cervical radiculopathy and EMG showing motor axonal loss in 2 myotomes predicted with 90% accuracy those who progressed to symptomatic myelopathy.
• Odds ratio 12.5 (p<0.001) for EMG
Needle electromyography predicts outcome after lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI)
• Annaswamy TM, Bierner SM, Chouteau W, Elliott AC. Muscle Nerve. 2012
• 89 subjects prospectively studied
• Predictor variables regarding response to LESI
• Abnormal EMG is a strong and independent predictor of a positive response to LESI – long term pain relief
CONCLUSIONS
• EMG and NCS are excellent diagnostic tests
• Use solid reference foundation
• Realize limitations
• Don’t overcall