Spinal Nerve Stimulation

MacLean, Ian C.

doi:10.1016/s1047-9651(18)30510-2

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…86 A similar technique for lumbosacral root stimulation was originally described several years ago (although for lumbosacral plexus assessment), 81 and is still used occasionally. 34,80 A more invasive procedure has also been described in which needle stimulating and recording electrodes are used, with the former inserted into the spinal canal (extrathecally). 93 In an early report, Tabaraud and colleagues recorded the responses from the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles using a somewhat different approach, namely after percutaneous electrical stimulation over the lumbar spine, in 45 patients with radiologically verified L5 or S1 disk disease that was causing unilateral symptoms; they compared the findings on the two sides and also to the findings elicited in 25 normal control subjects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

AAEM Minimonograph 32: The electrodiagnostic examination in patients with radiculopathies

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

AAEM Minimonograph 32: The electrodiagnostic examination in patients with radiculopathies

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The only described way to stimulate proximal to the level of a proximal sciatic injury, in order to assess the extent to which there may be conduction block at the level of the injury, would be to use direct nerve root stimulation using either magnetic or electrical methods at the lower lumbar and sacral levels. 9 Sensory NCSs of the superficial peroneal and sural nerves can be helpful in localizing and assessing the extent of injury. When the SNAPs are within normal range at least a week after the injury, then the lesion is either proximal to the level of the dorsal root ganglion(DRG) or, if posterior to the DRG, it is mild enough to have spared significant damage to sensory fibers and is therefore likely to recover well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

AAEM case report 32: Nerve injury associated with hip arthroplasty

Goldberg

Goldstein

1998

Muscle Nerve

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hip Arthroplasty to alleviate pain related to arthritic degeneration has become one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed. As the elderly population expands, the number of such procedures can be expected to continue to increase. An electrodiagnostic evaluation can aid in localization, help identify the mechanism of injury, and be used as a tool to identify the nature and severity of the nerve pathology. Electrodiagnosis can also be used to generate a prognosis for recovery from nerve damage following hip surgery. CASE REPORTClinical History. The patient was a 59-year-old woman who underwent a revision of a right total hip prosthesis that had been originally placed for hip pain related to severe osteoarthritis. A posterolateral approach was used. Revision was required because of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. Besides the previous hip arthroplasty on the right, past medical history included hypertension, diet-controlled diabetes mellitus, and a previous total hip arthroplasty on the left side also for severe osteoarthritis. On postoperative day 1, she was noted to have weakness in dorsiflexion of the right foot and toes along with sensory loss over the dorsum of the foot. The level of injury was not clear at that time. Following transfer to the rehabilitation hospital for postarthroplasty remobilization, the patient was found to drag the right forefoot when attempting to walk. The patient was referred for needle electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCSs) to determine the site and severity of nerve injury and to

show abstract

“…Proximal conducting pathways are implicated as primary pathophysiological targets in acute and chronic demyelinating peripheral neuropathies 1–5. Methods of directly assessing conduction in proximal pathways include excitation with either percutaneous high‐voltage or direct needle stimulation 6–11. In contrast, using a round magnetic coil (MC) for paravertebral neuromagnetic stimulation over the lower lumbar and sacral spine is both non‐invasive and relatively painless.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%