Reliability of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of neurogenic versus vascular claudication
- PMID: 24041916
- PMCID: PMC3858492
- DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.021
Reliability of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of neurogenic versus vascular claudication
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.
Keywords: Interrater reliability; Neurogenic claudication; Physical examination; Vascular claudication.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
The validity of ankle-brachial index for the differential diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease and lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with atypical claudication.Eur Spine J. 2012 Jun;21(6):1165-70. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-2072-3. Epub 2011 Nov 22. Eur Spine J. 2012. PMID: 22105308 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical classification criteria for neurogenic claudication caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. The N-CLASS criteria.Spine J. 2018 Jun;18(6):941-947. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.003. Epub 2017 Oct 12. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29031994
-
Fear of movement/(re)injury and activity avoidance in persons with neurogenic versus vascular claudication.Spine J. 2012 Apr;12(4):292-300. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.015. Epub 2012 Apr 4. Spine J. 2012. PMID: 22480530 Free PMC article.
-
Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Sep 1;21(17):2046-52. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199609010-00024. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996. PMID: 8883210 Review.
-
Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 30;(8):CD010712. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010712. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23996271 Review.
Cited by
-
Diagnostic accuracy of the lumbar spinal stenosis-diagnosis support tool and the lumbar spinal stenosis-self-administered, self-reported history questionnaire.PLoS One. 2022 May 5;17(5):e0267892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267892. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35511759 Free PMC article.
-
Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome.Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2021 Oct;11(5):1159-1167. doi: 10.21037/cdt-20-186. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2021. PMID: 34815967 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Differentiation of vascular claudication due to bilateral common iliac artery stenosis versus neurogenic claudication with spinal stenosis.Surg Neurol Int. 2021 May 17;12:231. doi: 10.25259/SNI_33_2021. eCollection 2021. Surg Neurol Int. 2021. PMID: 34221562 Free PMC article.
-
How To Assess a Claudication and When To Intervene.Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019 Nov 14;21(12):138. doi: 10.1007/s11886-019-1227-4. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019. PMID: 31728766 Review.
-
ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Aug 1;41(15):1239-1246. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001476. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016. PMID: 26839989 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine. 2005;30:1441–1445. - PubMed
-
- Haig AJ, Tomkins C. Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. JAMA. 2010;303:71–72. - PubMed
-
- Haig AJ, Geisser ME, Tong HC, et al. Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low-back pain, and no back symptoms. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:358–366. - PubMed
-
- Yagci I, Gunduz OH, Ekinci G, Diracoglu D, Us O, Akyuz G. The utility of lumbar paraspinal mapping in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88:843–851. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
