SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 4

The needle electromyography findings in the neurophysiological classification of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow

Halit FİDANCI
İlker ÖZTÜRK
Ahmet Candan KÖYLÜOĞLU
Mehmet YILDIZ
Şencan BUTURAK
Zülfikar ARLIER
Pages
804–810
Publication Date
2020-08-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Needle EMG abnormalities may also be present in patients with mild UNE due to axonal degeneration or motor conduction block.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: Although ulnar neuropathy at the elbow UNE is the second most common entrapment mononeuropathy, there are few reports on its neurophysiological classification.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the neurophysiological classification proposed by Padua, UNE patients were classified as mild, moderate, and severe.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Needle EMG abnormalities may also be present in patients with mild UNE due to axonal degeneration or motor conduction block.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Needle electromyography · neurophysiological classification · ulnar neuropathy at the elbow

Abstract

Background/aim: Although ulnar neuropathy at the elbow UNE is the second most common entrapment mononeuropathy, there are few reports on its neurophysiological classification. In this study, we tried to find out the role of needle electromyography EMG in the neurophysiological classification of UNE. Materials and methods: UNE patients who met the clinical and neurophysiological diagnostic criteria and healthy individuals were included in this study. Reference values of nerve conduction studies were obtained from healthy individuals. Needle EMG was performed to all UNE patients. According to the neurophysiological classification proposed by Padua, UNE patients were classified as mild, moderate, and severe. Results: Thirty-one controls and thirty-five UNE patients were included in the study. There was mild UNE in 23 patients, moderate UNE in 8, and severe UNE in 4. Abnormal needle EMG findings were present in all patients with moderate and severe UNE and in 12 patients with mild UNE. Conclusion: Abnormal needle EMG findings are seen in most of the UNE patients. Therefore, it is not practical to use needle EMG findings in the neurophysiological classification. Needle EMG abnormalities may also be present in patients with mild UNE due to axonal degeneration or motor conduction block.

🔖

Cite This Article

FİDANCI, H., ÖZTÜRK, İ., KÖYLÜOĞLU, A. C., YILDIZ, M., BUTURAK, Ş., ARLIER, Z. (2020). The needle electromyography findings in the neurophysiological classification of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 4, 804–810. https://ajindex.com/articles/113171

References (12)

  1. Campbell WW. Guidelines in electrodiagnostic medicine. Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Muscle Nerve Supplement 1999; 8: S171-205
  2. Chen S, Andary M, Buschbacher R, Del Toro D, Smith B et al. Electrodiagnostic reference values for upper and lower limb nerve conduction studies in adult populations. Muscle Nerve 2016; 54 (3): 371-377
  3. Visser LH, Beekman R, Franssen H. Short-segment nerve conduction studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2005; 31 (3): 331-338
  4. Kanakamedala RV, Simons DG, Porter RW, Zucker RS. Ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow localized by short segment stimulation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1988; 69 (11): 959-963
  5. Azrieli Y, Weimer L, Lovelace R, Gooch C. The utility of segmental nerve conduction studies in ulnar mononeuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2003; 27 (1): 46-50
  6. Omejec G, Podnar S. Proposal for electrodiagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 2016; 127 (4): 1961-1967
  7. MacDermid JC, Grewal R. Development and validation of the patient-rated ulnar nerve evaluation. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013; 14: 146
  8. Mandelli C, Baiguini M. Ulnar nerve entrapment neuropathy at the elbow: decisional algorithm and surgical considerations. Neurocirugia (Astur) 2009; 20 (1): 31-38
  9. Burns PB, Kim HM, Gaston RG, Haase SC, Hammert WC et al. Predictors of functional outcomes after simple decompression for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: a multicenter study by the SUN study group. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2014; 95 (4): 680-685
  10. Padua L, Aprile I, Mazza O, Padua R, Pietracci E et al. Neurophysiological classification of ulnar entrapment across the elbow. Neurological Sciences: Official Journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology 2001; 22 (1): 11-16
  11. Greathouse DG, Ernst G, Halle JS, Shaffer SW. GEHS neurophysiological classification system for patients with neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. United States Army Medical Department Journal 2017; (3-17): 26-35
  12. Beekman R, Van Der Plas JP, Uitdehaag BM, Schellens RL, Visser LH. Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and sonographic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2004; 30 (2): 202-208