##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 96 Download : 91

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

Compressive myelopathy is a neurological deficit that results from compression of the spinal cord and leads to a variety of symptoms and potentially serious consequences. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard for diagnosing compressive myelopathy as it provides high-resolution anatomical images and is the preferred method for evaluating the underlying pathology, but somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) have also been used as a diagnostic tool as it provides information about the functional integrity of the spinal cord and assess the severity and extent of the damage. This article presents a comparative analysis of MRI and SSEPs in the diagnosis of compressive myelopathy and discusses the complementary role they can play in diagnosis and monitoring of the disease. Seventy four subjects were involved in the study, divided into controls (35) and cases (39) of myelopathies due to disc herniation. Severity of myelopathy for cases group were classified according to modified Japanese Assessment scale (mJOA) into; mild, moderate and severe. SSEPs showed more correlation with severity of myelopathy more than MRI (r=0.948, 0.599 respectively) and higher sensitivity of SSEPs for detecting severe myelopathies (91.7%) while MRI sensitivity was only (16.7%) sensitive.

Keywords

SSEPs spine MRI Electrodiagnostics compressive myelopathy

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Haneen J. Mohammed, Farah N. Abbas, & Mazin M. Hammady. (2023). Comparing SSEPs and MRI as Diagnostic Tools for Evaluating Compressive Myelopathies Caused by Disc Herniation. Texas Journal of Medical Science, 18, 95–101. https://doi.org/10.62480/tjms.2023.vol18.pp95-101
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Diseases & pathophysiology in neurology. Huppert L.A., & Dyster T.G.(Eds.), (2021). Huppert’s Notes: Pathophysiology and Clinical Pearls for Internal Medicine. McGraw Hill.
  2. Kranz, P.G. and Amrhein, T.J. 2019. Imaging Approach to Myelopathy: Acute, Subacute, and Chronic. Radiol Clin North Am. Mar; 57(2):257-279.
  3. Expert Panel on Neurological Imaging, Agarwal, V., Shah, L. M., Parsons, M. S., Boulter, D. J., Cassidy, R. C., Hutchins, T. A., Jamlik-Omari Johnson, Kendi, A. T., Khan, M. A., Liebeskind, D. S., Moritani, T., Ortiz, A. O., Reitman, C., Shah, V. N., Snyder, L. A., Timpone, V. M., & Corey, A. S. (2021). ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Myelopathy: 2021 Update. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 18(5S), S73–S82.
  4. Muzyka, I.M. and Estephan, B., 2019. Somatosensory evoked potentials. Handb Clin Neurol.;160:523-540.
  5. Zileli, M., Maheshwari, S., Kale, S.S., Garg, K., Menon, S.K., Parthiban, J., 2019. Outcome Measures and Variables Affecting Prognosis of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations. Neurospine, 16(3), pp.435-447.
  6. Tetreault, L., Kopjar, B., Nouri, A. et al. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J 26, 78–84 (2017).
  7. Zileli M, Maheshwari S, Kale SS, Garg K, Menon SK, Parthiban J. Outcome Measures and Variables Affecting Prognosis of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations. Neurospine. 2019 Sep;16(3):435-447.
  8. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):E675-93.
  9. Van den Brand, R., Heutschi, J., Barraud, Q., DiGiovanna, J., Bartholdi, K., Huerlimann, M., et al,. 2012. Restoring voluntary control of locomotion after paralyzing spinal cord injury. Science (New York, N.Y.), 336(6085), pp. 1182–1185.
  10. Leemhuis, E., Favieri, F., Forte, G., Pazzaglia, M., 2022. Integrated Neuroregenerative Techniques for Plasticity of the Injured Spinal Cord. Biomedicines.; 10(10):2563.
  11. Janardhana, A. P., Rajagopal, Rao.S., and Kamath, A. 2010. Correlation between clinical features and magnetic resonance imaging findings in lumbar disc prolapse. Indian journal of orthopaedics, 44(3), pp. 263–269.
  12. Kareem, R. M., Al-madfai, Z. and A. Al-Sheikhly, A., 2014. “Somatosensory Evoked Potentials Study in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Patients”, Journal of the Faculty of Medicine Baghdad, 56(1), pp. 101–106.
  13. Feng, X., Hu, Y., and Ma, X. 2020. Progression Prediction of Mild Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy by Somatosensory-evoked Potentials. Spine, 45(10), pp.560–567.
  14. Nardone, R., Höller, Y., Brigo, F., Frey, V.N., Lochner, P., Leis, S., Golaszewski, S., Trinka, E. et al., 2016. The contribution of neurophysiology in the diagnosis and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review. Spinal Cord, 54, pp. 756–766