Ultrasonography has a diagnostic value in the assessment of cervical radiculopathy: A prospective pilot study

Takeuchi, Mikinobu; Wakao, Norimitsu; Hirasawa, Atsuhiko; Murotani, Kenta; Kamiya, Mitsuhiro; Osuka, Koji; Takayasu, Misako

doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4704-9

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Imaging of the cervical nerve roots and the vagal nerve using ultrasound has been increasingly described in recent years. Enlargement of the cross‐sectional area (CSA) of cervical nerve roots was described in radiculopathy [1,2] as well as in inflammatory polyneuropathies such as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and multifocal motor neuropathy [3,4]. CSA of the vagal nerve might give information about involvement of the autonomic nervous system [5], and a reduction in comparison to healthy individuals was described in Parkinson disease [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐sectional area reference values for peripheral nerve ultrasound in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis—Part III: Cervical nerve roots and vagal nerve

Fisse

Katsanos

Gold

et al. 2021

Euro J of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose Measurement of the cross‐sectional area (CSA) of cervical nerve roots using ultrasound is useful in the evaluation of inflammatory polyneuropathies, and measurement of CSA of the vagal nerve might give information about involvement of the autonomic nervous system. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published CSA reference values for cervical nerve roots and vagal nerve. Methods We included available‐to‐date nerve ultrasound studies on healthy adults and provide meta‐analysis for CSA of the following nerves: cervical nerve roots C5, C6, and C7 as well as vagal nerve in the carotid sheath at the carotid bifurcation level. We report regression and correlation analyses for age, gender, height, weight, and geographic continent. Results We included 11 studies with 885 healthy volunteers (mean age = 42.7 years) and 3149 examined nerve sites. Calculated mean pooled CSA of C5 root was 5.6 mm2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.6–6.7 mm2, n = 911), of C6 root was 8.8 mm2 (95% CI = 7.4–10.3 mm2, n = 909), of C7 root was 9.5 mm2 (95% CI = 8.0–10.9 mm2, n = 909), and of vagal nerve was 2.2 mm2 (95% CI = 1.5–2.9 mm2, n = 420). No heterogeneity was found across studies for any site. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant effects of age, gender, height, weight, and geographic continent on CSA for any of these nerve sites. Conclusions We provide the first meta‐analysis on CSA reference values for the cervical nerve roots and the vagal nerve, with no heterogeneity of reported CSA values at all nerve sites. Our data facilitate the goal of an international standardized evaluation protocol.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐sectional area reference values for peripheral nerve ultrasound in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis—Part III: Cervical nerve roots and vagal nerve

Fisse

Katsanos

Gold

et al. 2021

Euro J of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultrasonography has shown a diagnostic value in assessing cervical radiculopathy, showing the cross-sectional areas of the affected nerve roots to be significantly enlarged. 13 A study by Li, Gomez, and Fish in 2010 illustrated the extent of chronic pain that some electrically injured patients endure and how a multimodal approach to pain management is required. Rehabilitation for electrical burn injuries requires an interdisciplinary approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allodynia in Cervical Polyradiculopathy Due to Low-voltage Electrical Burn Injury: A Case Report

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropathic pain has been described following an electrical injury, whether as an immediate response or a late-onset sequela. There is much information on high-voltage injuries in literature due to its dramatic presentation, but limited studies on low-voltage injuries. However, low-voltage injuries can be as diverse and may have symptoms varying from minimal cutaneous involvement to full-thickness injury. Significant injuries may result from multiple factors, including prolonged duration of exposure and a higher amount of current transmitted.We illustrate an atypical presentation of a low-voltage injury in a 17-year-old female. The patient had a lowvoltage electrical injury with no cutaneous burn noted on the affected extremity. She initially presented with allodynia, which seemed disproportionate to the clinical findings expected in a low-voltage injury. The patient underwent an electrodiagnostic study, which showed cervical polyradiculopathy (C5, C6, C7 polyradiculopathy) and neuromusculoskeletal ultrasonology, which showed enlarged right C5 nerve root. Medical management, daily physical and occupational therapies, and psychological management, were instituted, which resulted in significant improvement of the patient's pain level and functional status.We describe the importance of the multimodal approach (medical and rehabilitation) in managing this atypical case.

show abstract

“…Pilot studies are always prospective so the description "prospective pilot study" is unnecessary [29]. Pilot studies measure more factors than feasibility studies and, similarly, are not powered around the definitive primary outcome, for example diagnostic accuracy, because as we have said, a larger study would then be unnecessary.…”

Section: Feasibility and Pilot Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review identifies and examines terms used to describe a radiological research "study" or "trial". A taxonomy of clinical research descriptions is explained with reference to medical imaging examples. Because many descriptive terms have precise methodological implications, it is important that these terms are understood by readers and used correctly by researchers, so that the reader is not misled. Key Points • Multiple different terms are being used to describe radiological research "studies" and "trials", and many of these terms have precise methodological implications. • Radiological researchers sometimes use titles that describe their research incorrectly. This can mislead the reader as to what was actually done. • It is important that readers and researchers understand the correct taxonomy of clinical research and that researchers adopt the correct description for their work.

show abstract

Ultrasonography has a diagnostic value in the assessment of cervical radiculopathy: A prospective pilot study

Cited by 17 publications

References 21 publications

Cross‐sectional area reference values for peripheral nerve ultrasound in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis—Part III: Cervical nerve roots and vagal nerve

Cross‐sectional area reference values for peripheral nerve ultrasound in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis—Part III: Cervical nerve roots and vagal nerve

Allodynia in Cervical Polyradiculopathy Due to Low-voltage Electrical Burn Injury: A Case Report

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About