Motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in asymptomatic spondylotic cord compression

Muscle and Nerve

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 628-634

  Tavy, D L J ^a   Franssen, H ^b   Keunen, R W M ^a   Wattendorff, A R ^a   Hekster, R E M ^a   Van Huffelen, A C ^b  

^a LEYENBURG HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Asymptomatic cervical stenosis; Motor evoked potentials; Somatosensory evoked potentials; Spondylosis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINAL CORD; CERVICAL SPONDYLOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EVOKED RESPONSE; EVOKED SOMATOSENSORY RESPONSE; HUMAN; MEDIAN NERVE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ELECTRODIAGNOSIS; EVOKED POTENTIALS, MOTOR; EVOKED POTENTIALS, SOMATOSENSORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEURAL CONDUCTION; PARESTHESIA; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; SPINAL OSTEOPHYTOSIS; SPINAL STENOSIS;

EID: 0032930068     PISSN: 0148639X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199905)22:5<628::AID-MUS12>3.0.CO;2-3     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL. Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Lancet 1985;i: 1106-1107.
2. Bischoff C, Meyer BU, Machetanz J, Conrad B. The value of magnetic stimulation in the diagnosis of radiculopathies. Muscle Nerve 1993;16:154-161.
3. Boden SD, McCowin PR, Davis DO, Dina TS, Mark AS, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72: 1178-1184.
4. Caramia MD, Cicinelli P, Paradiso C, Mariozenzi R, Zarola F, Bernardi G, Rossini PM. 'Excitability' changes of muscular responses to magnetic brain stimulation in patients with central motor disorders. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;81:243-250.
5. Chokroverty S, Picone MA, Chokroverty M. Percutaneous magnetic coil stimulation of human cervical vertebral column: site of stimulation and clinical application. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;81:359-365.
6. Claus D, Murray NMF, Spitzer A, Flugel D. The influence of stimulus type on the magnetic excitation of nerve structures. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990;75:342-349.
7. Dijk van JG. Multiple tests and diagnostic validity. Muscle Nerve 1995;18:353-355.
8. Epstein CM, Fernandez-Beer E, Weissman JD, Matsuura S. Cervical magnetic stimulation: the role of the neural foramen. Neurology 1991;41:677-680.
9. Friedenberg ZB, Miller WT. Degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg 1963;45:1171-1178.
10. Hess CW, Mills KR, Murray NMF. Responses in small hand muscles from magnetic stimulation of the human brain. J Physiol 1987;388:397-419.
11. Houser OW, Onofrio BM, Miller GM, Folger N, Smith PL. Cervical spondylotic stenosis and myelopathy, evaluation with computed tomographic myelography. Mayo Clin Proc 1994;69-557.
12. Kameyama O, Shibanu K, Kawakita H, Ogawa R. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in cervical spondylosis and spinal canal stenosis. Spine 1995;20:1004-1010.
13. Lazzaro Di V, Restuccia D, Colosimo C, Tonali P. The contribution of magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex to the diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Correlation of central motor conduction to distal and proximal upper limb muscles with clinical and MRI findings. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992;85:311-320.
14. Lees F, Aldren-Turner JW. Natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. Br Med J 1963;92:1607-1610.
15. Maertens de Noordhout A, Remacle JM, Pepin JL, Born JD, Delwaide PJ. Magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in cervical spondylosis. Neurology 1991;41:75-80.
16. Maurice-Williams RS. The cervical spine: clinical aspects. In: Maurice-Williams RS, editor. Spinal degenerative disease. Bristol: John Wright & Sons; 1981. p 70-71.
17. Murray NMF. The clinical usefulness of magnetic cortical stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992;85: 81-85.
18. Pallis C, Jones AM, Spillane JD. Cervical spondylosis -incidence and implications. Brain 1954;77:274-289.
19. Rivner MH. Statistical errors and their effect on electrodiagnostic medicine. Muscle Nerve 1994;17:811-814.
20. Robinson LR, Temkin NR, Fujimoto WY, Stolov WC. Effect of statistical methodology on normal limits in nerve conduction studies. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:1084-1090.
21. Rowland LP. Surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: time for a controlled trial. Neurology 1992;42:5-13.
22. Schmid UD, Hess CW, Ludin HP. Somatosensory evoked potentials following nerve and segmental stimulation do not confirm cervical radiculopathy with sensory deficit. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988;51:182-187.
23. Tavy DLJ, Wagner GL, Keunen RWM, Wattendorff AR, Hekster REM, Franssen HF. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiological correlation. Muscle Nerve 1994;17:235-241.
24. Teresi LM, Lufkin RB, Reicher MA, Moffit BJ, Vinuela FV, Wilson GM, Bentson JR, Hanafee WN. Asymptomatic degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine: MR imaging. Radiology 1987;164:83-88.
25. Travlos A, Pant B, Eisen A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for detection of preclinical cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:442-446.
26. Veilleux M, Daube JR. The value of ulnar somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in cervical myelopathy. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987;68:415-423.
27. Yiannikas C, Shahani BT, Young RR. Short-latency somatosensory-evoked potentials from radial, median, ulnar and peroneal nerve stimulation in the assessment of cervical spondylosis. Arch Neurol 1986;43:1264-1271.
28. Yu YL, Jones SJ. Somatosensory evoked potentials in cervical spondylosis: correlation of median, ulnar and posterior tibial nerve responses with clinical and radiological findings. Brain 1985;108:273-300.