» Articles » PMID: 24041916

Reliability of the Clinical Examination in the Diagnosis of Neurogenic Versus Vascular Claudication

Overview
Journal Spine J
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2013 Sep 18
PMID 24041916
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background Context: As research increasingly challenges the diagnostic accuracy of advanced imaging for lumbar spinal stenosis, the impression gleaned from the office evaluation becomes more important. Neurogenic claudication is a hallmark of lumbar spinal stenosis, but the reliability of clinical impression of claudication has not been studied.

Purpose: To determine the reliability of the clinical examination for neurogenic claudication in an idealized setting.

Study Design: Prospective masked controlled trial.

Patient Sample: Persons aged 55 to 90 years were recruited to form three groups: those offered surgery for spinal stenosis by academic spine surgeons, those who had peripheral vascular symptoms and positive ankle-brachial index (ABI), and those who were asymptomatic. All were extensively screened against confounding diseases. Forty-three neurogenic, 12 vascular, and 35 asymptomatic recruits were tested.

Outcome Measures: Clinical impression of neurogenic claudication.

Methods: A neurosurgeon and a vascular surgeon, masked to each other's findings, imaging, and recruitment status, performed a codified but unconstrained comprehensive spine and vascular history and physical examination for each subject. The surgeon's impression was recorded.

Results: Masked surgeons strongly agreed with the recruitment diagnosis (neurosurgeon kappa 0.761, vascular surgeon kappa 0.803, both p<.001) and with each other (kappa 0.717, p<.001). However, disagreements did occur between examiners and recruitment diagnosis (neurosurgeon n=13 cases, vascular surgeon n=10) and between examiners (n=14 cases). Pain level and marginally some measures of disability related to the agreement, but specific aspects of the physical examination, showed poor interrater reliability and did not contribute to the agreement.

Conclusions: The clinical impression of neurogenic claudication is a reliable construct. The history, but not the poorly reproduced physical examination, contributes to reliability. The level of disagreement between experts in this simplified, yet severely involved, population raises concern about the risk of misdiagnosis in individual cases. Thus, surgical and other consequential decisions about diagnosis may require ancillary tests such as electromyography or ABI.

Citing Articles

Diagnostic accuracy of the lumbar spinal stenosis-diagnosis support tool and the lumbar spinal stenosis-self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire.

Tominaga R, Kurita N, Sekiguchi M, Yonemoto K, Kakuma T, Konno S PLoS One. 2022; 17(5):e0267892.

PMID: 35511759 PMC: 9070893. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267892.


Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome.

Bradshaw S, Habibollahi P, Soni J, Kolber M, Pillai A Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2021; 11(5):1159-1167.

PMID: 34815967 PMC: 8569273. DOI: 10.21037/cdt-20-186.


Differentiation of vascular claudication due to bilateral common iliac artery stenosis versus neurogenic claudication with spinal stenosis.

Shields L, Iyer V, Self S, Zhang Y, Shields C Surg Neurol Int. 2021; 12:231.

PMID: 34221562 PMC: 8247692. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_33_2021.


How To Assess a Claudication and When To Intervene.

Hossain P, Kokkinidis D, Armstrong E Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019; 21(12):138.

PMID: 31728766 DOI: 10.1007/s11886-019-1227-4.


ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study.

Tomkins-Lane C, Melloh M, Lurie J, Smuck M, Battie M, Freeman B Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(15):1239-1246.

PMID: 26839989 PMC: 4966995. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001476.

References
1.
Deyo R, Gray D, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin B . United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(12):1441-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000166503.37969.8a. View

2.
Haig A, Tong H, Yamakawa K, Quint D, Hoff J, Chiodo A . Spinal stenosis, back pain, or no symptoms at all? A masked study comparing radiologic and electrodiagnostic diagnoses to the clinical impression. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(7):897-903. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.03.016. View

3.
Murabito J, Evans J, Nieto K, Larson M, Levy D, Wilson P . Prevalence and clinical correlates of peripheral arterial disease in the Framingham Offspring Study. Am Heart J. 2002; 143(6):961-5. DOI: 10.1067/mhj.2002.122871. View

4.
Kerns R, Turk D, Rudy T . The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Pain. 1985; 23(4):345-356. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(85)90004-1. View

5.
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang M, Lipson S, Fossel A, Katz J . Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(7):796-803. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004. View