A Comparison of Dermatomal and Major Nerve Evoked Responses with Clinical Diagnosis in Acute Spinal Injury

  • J. R. Toleikis
  • T. B. Sloan
Conference paper

Abstract

The present status of evoked potential technology has made it relatively commonplace to monitor activity along the sensory neural pathways in human peripheral nerves, spinal cord and the brain. It has been widely applied for monitoring of these pathways during surgical procedures where undesired trauma may occur. Similarly, it can be utilized to evaluate the functional integrity of an already traumatized spinal cord and the process of recovery from that injury. Several such studies using somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) have been published regarding the evaluation of patients who have sustained spinal cord injuries (1–6). The patients in these studies were generally evaluated with lower extremity (e.g., posterior tibial or peroneal nerve) SEPs because the signals obtained from such stimulation in normal individuals are relatively large in amplitude and have characteristic morphologies. It has been accepted that the presence of a SEP resulting from stimulation of a nerve originating below the level of injury in the period of 24 hours to one week post injury is a favorable prognostic sign. This is thought to indicate an incomplete lesion where return of some degree of neural function is possible. On the other hand, the consistent absence of such a signal is an unfavorable prognostic indicator and generally correlates with a complete lesion.

Keywords

Filtration Neurol Dura Eisen Radiculopathy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Perot, P.L.; Vera, C.L.: Scalp-recorded somatosensory evoked potentials to stimulation of nerves in the lower extremities and evaluation of patients with spinal cord trauma. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1982, 388: 359–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perot, P.L.: The clinical Use of evoked potentials in spinal cord injury. Clin. Neurosurg., 1973, 20: 367–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rowed, D.W.; McLean, J.A.G.; Tator, C.H.: Somatosensory evoked potentials in acute spinal cord injury: Prognostic value. Surg. Neurol., 1978, 9: 203–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rowed, D.W.: Value of somatosensory evoked potentials for prognosis in partial cord injuries. In: C.H. Tator (ed.), Early Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury. New York, Raven Press, 1982, pp. 167–180.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chabot, R.; York, D.H.; Watts, C.; Waugh, W.A.: Somatosensory evoked potentials evaluated in normal subjects and spinal cord-injured patients. J. Neurosurg., 1985, 63: 544–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spielholz, N.I.; Benjamin, M.V.; Engler, G.; Ransohoff, J.: Somatosensory evoked potentials and clinical outcome in spinal cord injury. In: A.J. Popp et al. (eds), Neural Trauma, New York: Raven Press, 1979, pp. 217–222.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aminoff, M.J.; Goodin, D.S.; Barbaro, N.M. et al.: Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in unilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy. Ann. Neurol., 1985, 17: 171–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aminoff, M.J.; Goodin, D.S.; Parry, G.J. et al.: Electrophysiologic evaluation of lumbosacral radiculopathies: Electromyography, late responses, and somatosensory evoked potentials. Neurology, 1985, 35: 1514–1518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dvonch, V.; Scarff, T.; Bunch, W.H. et al.: Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials: Their use in lumbar radiculopathy. Spine, 1984, 9: 291–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisen, A.: The somatosensory evoked potentials. Canadian J. Neurol. Sci., 1982, 9: 65–77.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisen, A.; Hoirch, M.; Moll, A.: Evaluation of radiculopathies by segmental stimulation and somatosensory evoked potentials. Canadian J. Neuro. Sci., 1983, 10: 178–182.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, J.; Gildemeister, R.; Hazelwood, C.: Dermatomally stimulated somatosensory cerebral evoked potentials in the clinical diagnosis of lumbar disc disease. Clin. Electroenceph., 1983, 14: 152–160.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    LaJoie, W.J.; Melvin, J.L.: Somatosensory evoked potentials elicited from individual cervical dermatomes represented by different fingers. Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1983, 23: 403–411.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scarff, T.B.; Dallmann, D.E.; Toleikis, J.R.; Bunch, W.H.: Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in the diagnosis of lumbar root entrapment. Surg. Forum, 1981, 32: 489–491.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baust, W.; Ilsen, H.W.; Jorg, W.; Wambach, G.: A neurophysiological method for the localization of transverse lesions of the spinal cord. Acta. Neurochir., 1972, 26: 352–353.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jorg, J.: Die Electrosensible Diagnostik In Der Neurologic. Berlin: Springer, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jorg, J.; Dullberg, W.; Koeppen, S.: Diagnostic value of segmental somatosensory evoked potentials in cases with chronic progressive para- or teraspastic syndromes. In: J. Courjon et al. (eds), Clinical Applications of Evoked Potentials in Neurology. New York: Raven Press, 1982, pp. 347–358.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scarff, T.B.; Toleikis, J.R.; Bunch, W.H.: Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in children with myelomeningocele. Z. Kinderchir., 1979, 28: 384–387.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schramm, J.; Oettle, G.J.; Pichert, T.: Clinical applications of segmental somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) — Experience in patients with non-space occupying lesions. In: C. Barber (ed.), Evoked Potentials. Leicester: MTP-Press, 1980, pp. 455–465.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toleikis, J.R.; Sloan, T.B.; Schrader, S.; Koht, A.: Scalp distribution of dermatomal evoked potentials. In: J. Schramm; S.J. Jones (eds), Spinal Cord Monitoring. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 59–63.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katifi, H.A.; Sedgwick, E.M.: Somatosensory evoked potentials from posterior tibial nerve and lumbo-sacral dermatomes. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophy., 1986, 65: 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Louis, A.A.; Gupta, P.; Perkash, I.: Localization of sensory levels in traumatic quadriplegia by segmental somatosensory evoked potentials. Electroencephalgr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1985, 62: 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toleikis, J.R.; Sloan, T.B.: A comparison study of major nerve and dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in the evaluation of spinal cord injured patients. In: C. Barber; T. Blum (eds), Evoked Potentials III: The Third International Evoked Potentials Symposium. Stoneham, Massachusetts: Butterworth (In Press).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schrader, S.C.; Sloan, T.B.; Toleikis, J.R.: Detection of sacral sparing in acute spinal cord injury. Spine (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Toleikis
    • 1
  • T. B. Sloan
  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiaNorthwestern University Medical SchoolChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations