Nocturnal seizure detection: What are the needs and expectations of adults with epilepsy receiving secondary care?

INTRODUCTION: Seizure detection devices (SDDs) may lower the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and provide reassurance to people with epilepsy and their relatives. We aimed to explore the perspectives of those receiving secondary care on nocturnal SDDs and epilepsy in general. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited adults with tonic or tonic-clonic seizures who had at least one nocturnal seizure in the preceding year. We used semi-structured interviews and questionnaires to explore their views on SDDs and their experiences of living with epilepsy. None of the participants had any previous experience with SDDs. We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Eleven participants were included with a nocturnal seizure frequency ranging from once every few weeks to less than once a year. Some participants experienced little burden of disease, whereas others were extremely impaired. Opinions on the perceived benefit of seizure detection varied widely and did not always match the clinical profile. Some participants with high SUDEP risk displayed no interest at all, whereas others with a low risk for unattended seizures displayed a strong interest. Reasons for wanting to use SDDs included providing reassurance, SUDEP prevention, and improving night rest. Reasons for not wanting to use SDDs included not being able to afford it, having to deal with false alarms, not having anyone to act upon the alarms, having a relative that will notice any seizures, not feeling like the epilepsy is severe enough to warrant SDD usage or not trusting the device. CONCLUSIONS: The interest in nocturnal seizure detection varies among participants with low seizure frequencies and does not always match the added value one would expect based on the clinical profile. Further developments should account for the heterogeneity in user groups.

Value of physical tests in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In clinical practice, the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy is based on information from the patient's history, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging. Various physical tests may be performed, but their diagnostic accuracy is unknown. PURPOSE: This study aimed to summarize and update the evidence on diagnostic performance of tests carried out during a physical examination for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN: A review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests was carried out. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample comprised diagnostic studies comparing results of tests performed during a physical examination in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy with a reference standard of imaging or surgical findings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios are presented, together with pooled results for sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: A literature search up to March 2016 was performed in CENTRAL, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Five diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. Only Spurling's test was evaluated in more than one study, showing high specificity ranging from 0.89 to 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.00); sensitivity varied from 0.38 to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.21-0.99). No studies were found that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of widely used neurological tests such as key muscle strength, tendon reflexes, and sensory impairments. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence for accuracy of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. When consistent with patient history, clinicians may use a combination of Spurling's, axial traction, and an Arm Squeeze test to increase the likelihood of a cervical radiculopathy, whereas a combined results of four negative neurodynamics tests and an Arm Squeeze test could be used to rule out the disorder.

CASINO: surgical or nonsurgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical radicular syndrome (CRS) due to a herniated disc can be safely treated by surgical decompression of the spinal root. In the vast majority of cases this relieves pain in the arm and restores function. However, conservative treatment also has a high chance on relieving symptoms. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of surgery versus prolonged conservative care during one year of follow-up, and to evaluate the timing of surgery. Predisposing factors in favour of one of the two treatments will be evaluated. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with disabling radicular arm pain, suffering for at least 2 months, and an MRI-proven herniated cervical disc will be randomised to receive either surgery or prolonged conservative care with surgery if needed. The surgical intervention will be an anterior discectomy or a posterior foraminotomy that is carried out according to usual care. Surgery will take place within 2-4 weeks after randomisation. Conservative care starts immediately after randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the VAS for pain or tingling sensations in the arm one year after randomisation. In addition, timing of surgery will be studied by correlating the primary outcome to the duration of symptoms. Secondary outcome measures encompass quality of life, costs and perceived recovery. Predefined prognostic factors will be evaluated. The total follow-up period will cover two years. A sample size of 400 patients is needed. Statistical analysis will be performed using a linear mixed model which will be based on the 'intention to treat' principle. In addition, a new CRS questionnaire for patients will be developed, the Leiden Cervical Radicular Syndrome Functioning (LCRSF) scale. DISCUSSION: The outcome will contribute to better decision making for the treatment of cervical radicular syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3504.

Root compression on MRI compared with clinical findings in patients with recent onset cervical radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the occurrence of symptomatic and asymptomatic root compression caused by herniated discs and spondylotic foraminal stenosis by MRI in patients with recent onset cervical radiculopathy. PARTICIPANTS: 78 patients with symptoms and signs of cervical radiculopathy of less than one month's duration. METHODS: The authors determined the clinically suspected level of root compression in each patient. Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated MRIs, blinded for the clinical findings. For each patient, the level of root compression on MRI was compared with the clinically affected level. The authors also examined the cause of compression: herniated disc, spondylotic foraminal stenosis or both. RESULTS: In 73% of patients, the clinically affected root was compressed on MRI. In 45%, MRI showed root compression without clinical substrate together with, or to a lesser extent without, the coexistence of compression of the clinically affected root. MRIs were assessed as normal in 13-15% of cases, and in 9-10% only asymptomatic roots were compressed. Herniated discs without spondylosis were more often responsible for root compressions only at the clinically affected level and spondylotic foraminal stenosis for multiple root compression including compression of clinically unaffected roots. CONCLUSION: MRI findings in patients with cervical radiculopathy should be interpreted together with the clinical findings, as false-positive and false-negative MRIs occur rather frequently.

Cervical collar or physiotherapy versus wait and see policy for recent onset cervical radiculopathy: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment with collar or physiotherapy compared with a wait and see policy in recent onset cervical radiculopathy. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Neurology outpatient clinics in three Dutch hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 205 patients with symptoms and signs of cervical radiculopathy of less than one month's duration INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with a semi-hard collar and taking rest for three to six weeks; 12 twice weekly sessions of physiotherapy and home exercises for six weeks; or continuation of daily activities as much as possible without specific treatment (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time course of changes in pain scores for arm and neck pain on a 100 mm visual analogue scale and in the neck disability index during the first six weeks. RESULTS: In the wait and see group, arm pain diminished by 3 mm/week on the visual analogue scale (beta=-3.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -4.0 to -2.2 mm) and by 19 mm in total over six weeks. Patients who were treated with cervical collar or physiotherapy achieved additional pain reduction (collar: beta=-1.9 mm, -3.3 to -0.5 mm; physiotherapy: beta=-1.9, -3.3 to -0.8), resulting in an extra pain reduction compared with the control group of 12 mm after six weeks. In the wait and see group, neck pain did not decrease significantly in the first six weeks (beta=-0.9 mm, -2.0 to 0.3). Treatment with the collar resulted in a weekly reduction on the visual analogue scale of 2.8 mm (-4.2 to -1.3), amounting to 17 mm in six weeks, whereas physiotherapy gave a weekly reduction of 2.4 mm (-3.9 to -0.8) resulting in a decrease of 14 mm after six weeks. Compared with a wait and see policy, the neck disability index showed a significant change with the use of the collar and rest (beta=-0.9 mm, -1.6 to -0.1) and a non-significant effect with physiotherapy and home exercises. CONCLUSION: A semi-hard cervical collar and rest for three to six weeks or physiotherapy accompanied by home exercises for six weeks reduced neck and arm pain substantially compared with a wait and see policy in the early phase of cervical radiculopathy. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00129714.