You are in: eMedicine Specialties > Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation > ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE Physical Assessment for Electrodiagnostic MedicineArticle Last Updated: Mar 26, 2008AUTHOR AND EDITOR INFORMATIONAuthor: Brian M Kelly, DO, Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Medical School; Assistant Program Director, Residency Training Program, Consulting Staff, Service Chief 6A, Inpatient Rehabilitation Services, University of Michigan Health System Brian M Kelly is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Osteopathic Association, American Osteopathic College of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Association of Academic Physiatrists Coauthor(s): Percival H Pangilinan Jr, MD, Clinical Instructor and Consulting Staff, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Health System; Joseph E Hornyak IV, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Medical School; Consulting Staff, Medical Director of Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Medical Center; Gianna M Rodriguez, MD, Instructor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Health System; Andrew Mazur, MD, Director of Electrodiagnostic Services, Southeast Rehabilitation Associates, PC Editors: Daniel D Scott, MD, MA, BS, Associate Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine; Michael T Andary, MD, MS, Residency Program Director, Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine; Kelly L Allen, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Lourdes Regional Rehabilitation Center, Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center; Denise I Campagnolo, MD, MS, Director of Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Research and Staff Physiatrist, Barrow Neurology Clinics, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center; Investigator for Barrow Neurology Clinics; Director, NARCOMS Project for Consortium of MS Centers, Phoenix Author and Editor Disclosure Synonyms and related keywords: physical examination, neurologic examination, neuromuscular examination, musculoskeletal examination, nerve conduction study, NCS, reflex, deep reflex, superficial reflex, serratus anterior winging, rhomboid winging, trapezius winging, Golgi tendon reflex, blink reflex, gag reflex, Romberg sign, Hoffman sign, palmomental reflex, Radovici sign, frontal release sign, Oppenheim sign, Chaddock sign, Bing sign INTRODUCTIONAs with any meaningful medical consultation, the electrodiagnostic medicine consultation must begin with obtaining a pertinent history and performing a physical examination. The history is not discussed in this article, but it obviously forms the basis of the ensuing examination by providing an understanding of the referring question, the patient's symptoms, and relevant past medical, surgical, and social history. The physical examination can be quite variable, depending on the clinical history. The examination might range from a very focal neurologic assessment, as might be the case in a focal neurologic injury (eg, knife wound to digital nerve), to a multisystem, generalized examination, as might be needed in a systemic disease presentation (eg, paraneoplastic syndrome). The physical examination should be detailed enough to provide clear differential diagnoses, as well as to help direct any later electrodiagnostic evaluation.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Without an appropriate history and physical examination to guide the sequence and choice of specific electrodiagnostic tests, electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCSs) become an exercise in miscellaneous data collection, which can be misleading, useless, or even potentially dangerous.6, 7 This article starts with a brief description of general and musculoskeletal examination components but focuses primarily on the neurologic examination. GENERAL EXAMINATIONFor most electrodiagnostic consultations, the examination focuses on the neurologic system; however, in many cases, the patient may be aware only of symptoms without any existing or known diagnoses. If the history is at all suggestive of a generalized process (eg, myopathy, polyneuropathy, neuromuscular junction disorder), then a general examination may be useful in defining a particular systemic medical illness. Initial assessment of vital signs can alert the clinician to cardiopulmonary or infectious problems and to possible contraindications to testing. Avoid tests at sites of any open wounds or infected areas, as well as needle examination where risk of compartment syndrome is high (at sites of bleeding or infection). Palpation can clarify areas of warmth, swelling, edema, tenderness, lymphadenopathy, or organomegaly. Observation Look for various manifestations of systemic diseases, such as the butterfly rash associated with polymyositis or the petechial rash seen in vasculitides. Other findings, such as loss of distal hair, trophic skin changes, nail changes or nevi, tumors, or other visible lesions, can lead to various diagnostic impressions that may help in designing an electrodiagnostic evaluation that will make it possible to obtain the most useful information needed to arrive at the appropriate diagnosis. Another important aspect of the general examination is a specific search for any physical impediments to the acquisition of useful electrodiagnostic information. For example, peripheral edema, calloused or scarred skin, dirty areas, or areas that have been covered with lotion can decrease the ability to obtain accurate information, particularly from the sensory NCS. MUSCULOSKELETAL EXAMINATIONExpertise in the musculoskeletal examination is tremendously helpful in electrodiagnostic consultations, especially when pain and dysfunction are presenting problems. Pain obviously has many different generators and is often not associated directly with the nervous system. For example, having the ability to define myofascial pain with referral patterns can help to avoid an extensive search for radiculopathy that does not exist. This skill is important in assessing complaints of weakness as well. Pain can often inhibit function, mimicking neurologic weakness and misleading the electromyographer into looking for axonal or conduction block conditions. Also, tenosynovitis in the wrist and fingers is a common presentation and is often mistaken for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Another issue that needs to be assessed is any potential barriers to normal neurologic function. For example, the finding of focal muscle atrophy does not imply definitive axonal injury or entrapment. Joint contracture may be present for neurologic or rheumatologic reasons or other means of contracture, such as postburn scarring. This immobility may eventually lead to disuse atrophy. During the musculoskeletal examination, an attempt should be made to define range of motion (ROM), areas of tenderness, or trigger points. The pain or dysfunctions should be isolated to joint, ligament, tendon, bone, muscle, or skin. The differences in active ROM versus passive ROM and the understanding of kinesiologic function for stabilizing and reciprocal muscles can lead to accurate diagnosis of involved structures that may or may not correlate with neurologic problems. For example, the assessment of scapulohumeral rhythm may suggest weakness in the scapular rotators rather than in the deltoid, or it may point out mechanical problems, such as scapular rib adhesions or adhesive capsulitis and frozen shoulder syndromes. A basic musculoskeletal examination could include the following:
See also the following related Medscape topic: NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATIONThe neurologic examination is usually the most important aspect of the physical assessment in electrodiagnostic consultations. "The electrodiagnostic examination is a direct extension of the neurologic examination" is an oft-repeated sentence. Classically, the neurologic examination is divided into motor and sensory functions. The motor examination is divided further into upper (cerebellar, cerebral, and spinal cord) and lower motor neuron, neuromuscular junction, and the muscle itself. The sensory examination is divided into similar categories of peripheral nerve (small unmyelinated vs large myelinated), spinal pathways, and brain.1, 8 Aside from defining motor and/or sensory involvement, the examination should assess various patterns, such as distal versus proximal, symmetry versus asymmetry, or isolated versus generalized findings, which can help to solidify a diagnostic impression and direct an appropriate selection of electrodiagnostic testing.
Deep versus superficial reflexes Although the term "deep tendon reflex" has been used historically to describe the deep reflexes, this name actually is a misnomer, because the deep reflexes are muscle stretch reflexes (not to be confused with true tendon reflexes, ie, Golgi tendon reflex). The superficial reflexes are elicited by sensory afferents from skin, rather than muscle.
Typical deep (muscle stretch) reflexes
Pathologic reflexes and other abnormal findings
Involuntary movements
Sensory examination Assess pain or temperature, light touch, vibration, and position sense, as well as, if necessary, discriminative sensations (such as 2-point discrimination and stereognosis, if cortical lesions are suggested). Because all sensory lesions above the dorsal root ganglion do not cause standard sensory NCS abnormalities, the first aspect of the sensory examination is to attempt to differentiate cortical, central or lateral cord, or posterior column abnormalities. Differentiating pain and temperature (central cord or lateral spinothalamic tract) from vibration, as well as position sense (posterior columns) versus light touch (anterior spinothalamic and posterior column), sometimes can help in this effort. The second step in the sensory examination is to define a pattern where possible. Understanding typical peripheral nerve distributions and dermatomal (ie, radicular) distributions clearly is very useful. For example, the patient with complaints of a numb thumb may have any of multiple possible etiologies, from digital nerves to the brain. The examination finding of sensory abnormality may well be different than the complaint. If sensory examination results show abnormalities along the volar thumb, index finger, middle finger, and half of the ring finger, median nerve dysfunction may be suggested, as opposed to abnormality of the volar and dorsum of the thumb and index finger with additional findings along the distal forearm suggesting C6 root abnormality instead. Nondermatomal and nonperipheral nerve distribution abnormalities may indicate polyneuropathic problems for which distal versus proximal patterns need to be assessed. Finally, an attempt to clarify the type of sensory abnormality is important. For example, hyperalgesia, and allodynia may imply small, unmyelinated C-fiber or autonomic nerve dysfunction not seen on standard sensory NCS. Cranial nerve function also needs to be assessed when symptoms suggest their involvement, as well as when generalized symptoms occur (because cranial involvement also is common in polyneuropathy).
SUMMARYThe exact nature of the physical examination should be determined by the clinician and is influenced by many factors, including (but not limited to) the patient's history, physical findings, physician and patient time constraints, and patient preference. Not only should the physical examination clearly direct the electrophysiologic examination, it should serve also as a backdrop in interpreting the electrophysiologic findings. For example, examination findings of weakness and atrophy should correlate with electrodiagnostic findings of axonal loss. A finding of median nerve slowing at the wrist alone, without amplitude drop or evidence of denervation with a presumptive diagnosis of CTS, would be inadequate to explain weakness and atrophy. The lack of internal consistency here should alert the careful electromyographer to additional differentials and testing. A case of shoulder pain in which there is incidental electrodiagnostic evidence for C8 radiculopathy provides another example of interpreting the results of the electrodiagnostic evaluation in the context of the physical examination. If the physical examination findings suggest that most of the symptoms are related to an adhesive capsulitis problem, this finding should be noted clearly in the final conclusions. Such results indicate that the limited range and dysfunction with pain at the shoulder is not due to the C8 radiculopathy. An accurate and directed physical examination also can expedite the electrodiagnostic evaluation by potentially limiting the number of nerves and muscles that might otherwise be studied, and by helping the practitioner to form diagnostic impressions and therefore to be more specific. REFERENCES
Physical Assessment for Electrodiagnostic Medicine excerpt Article Last Updated: Mar 26, 2008 |