Skip to content

A prospective analysis of the supine and sitting straight- Leg raise test and its performance in litigation patients

1Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The supine straight-leg raise (SLR) test has the potential to be exploited by malingering patients. The sitting SLR is believed to be less recognizable, therefore decreasing the chance of fabrication. The authors aim to compare the supine and sitting SLR test in patients with radiculopathy. Methods: A total of 107 patients with radiculopathy were included in this study. Two groups were created: patients with workman's compensation (Group 1) and a control group of patients without litigation claims (Group 2). Results: Mean age was 47.3 ± 1.3 years with a 51% female population. Correlation analysis demonstrated association between mean angles in both positions, r = 0.248 with significance P = .01. There was equivalence in the mean angles in sitting position of 37 ± 3° compared to 35 ± 2° in supine position (P = .549). There was no significant difference in the mean angle at which the test became positive in the litigation group in the sitting or supine position compared to the nonlitigation group, P = .616 and P = .49 respectively. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the SLR test is equivalent in the sitting and supine position. Therefore, patients with a positive test should have similar angles in both positions, decreasing the chance of falsifying the examination.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fajolu, O. K., Pencle, F. J. R., Rosas, S., & Chin, K. R. (2018). A prospective analysis of the supine and sitting straight- Leg raise test and its performance in litigation patients. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 12(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.14444/5010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free