257 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18806507)
1. Magnetic resonance imaging vs. electrodiagnostic root compromise in lumbar spinal stenosis: a masked controlled study.
Chiodo A; Haig AJ; Yamakawa KS; Quint D; Tong H; Choksi VR
Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2008 Oct; 87(10):789-97. PubMed ID: 18806507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Electromyographic and magnetic resonance imaging to predict lumbar stenosis, low-back pain, and no back symptoms.
Haig AJ; Geisser ME; Tong HC; Yamakawa KS; Quint DJ; Hoff JT; Chiodo A; Miner JA; Phalke VV
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2007 Feb; 89(2):358-66. PubMed ID: 17272451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Spinal stenosis, back pain, or no symptoms at all? A masked study comparing radiologic and electrodiagnostic diagnoses to the clinical impression.
Haig AJ; Tong HC; Yamakawa KS; Quint DJ; Hoff JT; Chiodo A; Miner JA; Choksi VR; Geisser ME; Parres CM
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2006 Jul; 87(7):897-903. PubMed ID: 16813774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Needle EMG has a lower false positive rate than MRI in asymptomatic older adults being evaluated for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Chiodo A; Haig AJ; Yamakawa KS; Quint D; Tong H; Choksi VR
Clin Neurophysiol; 2007 Apr; 118(4):751-6. PubMed ID: 17307393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Correlation of lateral stenosis in MRI with symptoms, walking capacity and EMG findings in patients with surgically confirmed lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
Kuittinen P; Sipola P; Aalto TJ; Määttä S; Parviainen A; Saari T; Sinikallio S; Savolainen S; Turunen V; Kröger H; Airaksinen O; Leinonen V
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2014 Jul; 15():247. PubMed ID: 25051886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Diffuse age-related lumbar mri changes confound diagnosis of single (L5) root lesions.
Botez SA; Zynda-Weiss AM; Logigian EL
Muscle Nerve; 2014 Jul; 50(1):135-7. PubMed ID: 24402913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Detection of lumbosacral nerve root compression with a novel composite nerve conduction measurement.
Wells MD; Meyer AP; Emley M; Kong X; Sanchez R; Gozani SN
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2002 Dec; 27(24):2811-9. PubMed ID: 12486352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Defining clinically relevant values for developmental spinal stenosis: a large-scale magnetic resonance imaging study.
Cheung JP; Samartzis D; Shigematsu H; Cheung KM
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2014 Jun; 39(13):1067-76. PubMed ID: 24732859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Physical examination, magnetic resonance image, and electrodiagnostic study in patients with lumbosacral disc herniation or spinal stenosis.
Lee JH; Lee SH
J Rehabil Med; 2012 Oct; 44(10):845-50. PubMed ID: 22930153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The utility of lumbar paraspinal mapping in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Yagci I; Gunduz OH; Ekinci G; Diracoglu D; Us O; Akyuz G
Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2009 Oct; 88(10):843-51. PubMed ID: 19661776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Electrodiagnostic characteristics of upper lumbar stenosis: Discrepancy between neurological and structural levels.
Park JH; Chung SG; Kim K
Muscle Nerve; 2020 May; 61(5):580-586. PubMed ID: 32096875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Percent spinal canal compromise on MRI utilized for predicting the need for surgical treatment in single-level lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.
Carlisle E; Luna M; Tsou PM; Wang JC
Spine J; 2005; 5(6):608-14. PubMed ID: 16291099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of Surgeon Rating of Severity of Stenosis Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Dural Cross-Sectional Area, and Functional Outcome Scores.
Marawar SV; Ordway NR; Madom IA; Tallarico RA; Palumbo M; Metkar U; Wang D; Huang D; Lavelle WF
World Neurosurg; 2016 Dec; 96():165-170. PubMed ID: 27586177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The relation among spinal geometry on MRI, paraspinal electromyographic abnormalities, and age in persons referred for electrodiagnostic testing of low back symptoms.
Haig AJ; Weiner JB; Tew J; Quint D; Yamakawa K
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2002 Sep; 27(17):1918-25; discussion 1924-5. PubMed ID: 12221358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The sensitivity and specificity of electrodiagnostic testing for the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Haig AJ; Tong HC; Yamakawa KS; Quint DJ; Hoff JT; Chiodo A; Miner JA; Choksi VR; Geisser ME
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2005 Dec; 30(23):2667-76. PubMed ID: 16319753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dynamic electrophysiological examination in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: is it useful in clinical practice?
Adamova B; Vohanka S; Dusek L
Eur Spine J; 2005 Apr; 14(3):269-76. PubMed ID: 15164271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Does the presence of the nerve root sedimentation sign on MRI correlate with the operative level in patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression for lumbar stenosis?
Fazal A; Yoo A; Bendo JA
Spine J; 2013 Aug; 13(8):837-42. PubMed ID: 23562333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Relationship between alterations of the lumbar spine, visualized with magnetic resonance imaging, and occupational variables.
Mariconda M; Galasso O; Imbimbo L; Lotti G; Milano C
Eur Spine J; 2007 Feb; 16(2):255-66. PubMed ID: 16835739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Correlation of paraspinal atrophy and denervation in back pain and spinal stenosis relative to asymptomatic controls.
Yarjanian JA; Fetzer A; Yamakawa KS; Tong HC; Smuck M; Haig A
PM R; 2013 Jan; 5(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 23332908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Diagnostic capability of low- versus high-field magnetic resonance imaging for lumbar degenerative disease.
Lee RK; Griffith JF; Lau YY; Leung JH; Ng AW; Hung EH; Law SW
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Mar; 40(6):382-91. PubMed ID: 25584942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
