4.4 Article

Painful or painless lower limb dysesthesias are highly predictive of peripheral neuropathy: Comparison of different diagnostic modalities

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 711-718

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.07.014

Keywords

Quantitative sensory testing; Epidermal nerve fiber density; Small-fiber neuropathy; Nerve conduction velocity; Dysesthesia

Funding

  1. BMBF
  2. University of Wurzburg

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dysesthesias of the lower limbs are a common complaint of patients and may be indicative of peripheral neuropathy. Here we investigated the prevalence and type of neuropathy in patients presenting with this complaint and compared the diagnostic performance of different diagnostic modalities. Forty-two patients were recruited prospectively and Underwent a clinical examination, nerve conduction studies, quantitative sensory testing (QST), and skin biopsy at the dorsum of the foot. All patients had a correlate for their dysesthesias in at least one diagnostic modality. Most patients (>90%) had signs of small fiber loss or dysfunction. In about half of all patients large fibers were also affected. Nerve conduction studies were abnormal in 23/42 patients (54.8%). Cold or warm detection thresholds in QST were abnormal in 15/42 (35.7%) patients. Decreased intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) was found in 37 patients (88.1%), including some patients with normal QST findings. Nearly all patients with pathological QST had a reduced IENFD, indicating a high positive predictive value (93%) of QST in screening for reduced IENFD as correlate for neuropathy. Therefore in all patients with lower limb dysesthesias of unknown origin, the non-invasive methods of NCS and QST Should be used and potentially complemented by skin biopsy. (C) 2008 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available