Usefulness of laser-evoked potentials and quantitative sensory testing in the diagnosis of neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: A multiple case study

14Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Study Design: A retrospective study. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) to the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and inconclusive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Setting: A multidisciplinary pain center. Methods: QST (DFNS protocol) and Tm-YAG-laser stimulation of the skin were applied within the pain site corresponding with dermatomes of altered sensation. Available MRI scans were reviewed. Results: Thirteen individuals (50±16 years) with SCI were examined. In four cases with no detectable neural lesion on MRI, all QST but three LEP were abnormal. In four patients with poorly defined spinal lesion on MRI, all QST but three LEP only were abnormal. In four cases where pain was not matching adequately with MRI lesions, all patients had abnormal LEP and QST. In one patient showing a spinal cord atrophy, LEP was normal but QST was abnormal. Findings supported the diagnoses at-level (n=5) and below-level (n=8) SCI pain. Spinothalamic tract function assessed by LEP was normal in three cases, but QST was abnormal in all cases. Conclusions: As QST is a psychophysical examination depending on patient cooperation, we suggest that the combination of QST and LEP might be a valuable diagnostic tool to detect lesions of the somatosensory system in a subgroup of patients with neuropathic spinal cord injury pain and inconclusive MRI findings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Landmann, G., Berger, M. F., Stockinger, L., & Opsommer, E. (2017). Usefulness of laser-evoked potentials and quantitative sensory testing in the diagnosis of neuropathic spinal cord injury pain: A multiple case study. Spinal Cord, 55(6), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.191

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