ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2023
Tibial nerve SEPs in diagnosing lumbar spinal stenosis: The utility of segmental evaluation using P15 and N21.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To establish the utility of the additional evaluation of the P15 potential generated at the greater sciatic foramen in the tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in diagnosing lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed tibial nerve SEP findings in patients having MRI-confirmed LSS at the cauda equina or conus/epiconus region. P15 and N21 potentials were recorded and the following findings were defined as localizing abnormalities: 1) normal P15 latency either with prolonged P15-N21 interval or with absent N21; 2) decreased ratio of the N21 amplitude to P15 amplitude. As non-localizing abnormalities, N21 and P38 latencies were also evaluated. Tibial nerve F-wave findings were also investigated. Results: According to the entry criteria, 18 patients were included, 15 with cauda equina lesions and 3 with conus/epiconus lesions. Localizing abnormalities in SEPs were found in 67% of patients, achieving significantly higher sensitivity than delayed P38 latency (28%), and higher sensitivity than N21 abnormalities (39%), though this was not significant. Localizing abnormalities were observed even in 6 out of 11 patients lacking both sensory symptoms and signs. Tibial nerve F-wave was abnormal in 36% of 14 patients with F-wave examinations, whereas the localizing abnormalities in SEPs were found in 64% of the same patient population. P15 amplitude was depressed in 4 patients (22%), which may indicate the involvement of the dorsal root ganglion in LSS, although its latency was normal even for these patients. Conclusions: Tibial nerve SEPs with the recording of P15 and N21 potentials achieved sufficiently high sensitivity in diagnosing LSS. They have the advantage over F-wave in that they can localize the lesion at the cauda equina or conus/epiconus level. Significance: Tibial nerve SEPs are promising in evaluating LSS, especially in documenting sensory tract involvement in cases lacking sensory symptoms/signs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.