PubMed2002
The anatomy, pathophysiology, and clinical evaluation of radiculopathies are discussed. Defining whether root injury is present and which roots are involved can be difficult but critical for patient management. In conjunction with clinical and radiological information, studies that establish physiological abnormalities of roots should be helpful and important. Clinical neurophysiological studies for radiculopathies are performed frequently but have yet to achieve a universally accepted role in the evaluation of these patients. Electrophysiological techniques for the evaluation of radiculopathies are reviewed. Needle electromyography is the best established of these procedures but has the disadvantage of requiring injury to motor fibers of both a certain degree and distribution. Nerve conduction studies may rarely be abnormal in radiculopathies but are needed to be certain other conditions that may produce similar symptoms and signs are not present. H reflexes and F waves probably have roles in the evaluation of radiculopathies but published reports about F waves in radiculopathies have been marred by inadequate methodology. There is evidence based on large series of patients that somatosensory evoked potentials can be helpful for evaluating patients with multilevel injury such as spinal stenosis, patients where electrophysiological studies may have their greatest clinical utility. Further work using either electrical stimulation with needles or magnetic stimulation of roots seems warranted. The demonstration of meaningful electrophysiological changes with activities that reproduce radicular symptoms may be a promising experimental approach. Available information does not necessarily answer critical questions about the role of electrophysiology in patients with radiculopathies. This cannot be done using analyses based on current ideas about evidence based medicine given the absence of a 'gold standard' for defining radiculopathies as well the absence of blinded studies. The available information provides strong arguments for further investigations evaluating different clinical neurophysiological techniques in the same patient, and for evaluating the value of these techniques by concentrating on their clinical import.