Journals / Neurological sciences and neurophysiology (Online) / 2019 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1

The importance of arm-elbow velocity difference in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow

Pages
16–21
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)

The detection of high rates of AEVD abnormalities in patients without sensory and mixed nerve abnormalities supports the usefulness of this measure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) by measuring the forearm-elbow velocity difference (FEVD) is subject to significant limitations because Wallerian degeneration might occur in severely affected patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow was classified as mild, moderate or severe.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The detection of high rates of AEVD abnormalities in patients without sensory and mixed nerve abnormalities supports the usefulness of this measure.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: Diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) by measuring the forearm-elbow velocity difference (FEVD) is subject to significant limitations because Wallerian degeneration might occur in severely affected patients. The contribution of the arm-elbow velocity difference (AEVD) in the diagnosis of UNE may be more valuable because this segment is less affected by pathologic changes. Methods: The charts of patients who were diagnosed as having UNE were reviewed. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow was classified as mild, moderate or severe. Motor nerve conduction studies of the ulnar nerve were performed with the elbow flexed to 90º in the supine position. Needle electromyography, as well as sensory and mixed nerve conduction studies, were also performed. Electrophysiologic findings were compared with controls. Results: The upper limit of FEVD and AEVD were 14.2 m/s and 21.8 m/s, respectively. In UNE, 13 of 23 limbs (56.5%) had AEVD abnormality, and 14 (61%) limbs demonstrated FEVD abnormalities. Arm-elbow velocity difference or FEVD abnormalities were present in 82.6% of UNE extremities. There was no statistically significant difference between AEVD and FEVD abnormalities in patients with mild, moderate or severe UNE. The evaluation of patients without sensory and mixed nerve conduction abnormalities revealed an increased AEVD in 6 (75%) out of 8 limbs. Conclusion: Diagnostic sensitivity of UNE is increased when FEVD and AEVD are evaluated together. The detection of high rates of AEVD abnormalities in patients without sensory and mixed nerve abnormalities supports the usefulness of this measure.

🔖

Cite This Article

FİDANCI, H., SAVRUN, Y., CENGİZ, B., KURUOĞLU, H. R. (2019). The importance of arm-elbow velocity difference in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Neurological sciences and neurophysiology (Online), Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 1, 16–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/290542

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Campbell WW, American Association of Electrodiagnostic Med-icine. Guidelines in electrodiagnostic medicine. Practice param-eter for electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the el-bow. Muscle Nerve Suppl 1999; 8: S171-S205
  2. Dawson DM, Hallett M, Wilbourn AJ. Entrapment neuropathies. 3rd Ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven; 1999. p.146-149
  3. Kanakamedala RV, Simons DG, Porter RW, Zucker RS. Ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow localized by short segment stimula-tion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69: 959-963
  4. Azrieli Y, Weimer L, Lovelace R, Gooch C. The utility of segmental nerve conduction studies in ulnar mononeuropathy at the el-bow. Muscle Nerve 2003; 27: 46-50. [CrossRef] 5. Visser LH, Beekman R, Franssen H. Short-segment nerve con-duction studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2005; 31: 331-338. [CrossRef] 6. Omejec G, Podnar S. Proposal for electrodiagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 127: 1961-1967. [CrossRef] 7. Buschbacher RM. Ulnar nerve motor conduction to the ab-ductor digiti minimi. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 78: S9–S14. [CrossRef] 8. Raynor EM, Shefner JM, Preston DC, Logigian EL. Sensory and mixed nerve conduction studies in the evaluation of ulnar neu-ropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 1994; 17: 785-792. [CrossRef] 9. Beekman R, Van Der Plas JP, Uitdehaag BM, Schellens RL, Visser LH. Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and sonographic studies in ul-nar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2004; 30: 202-208. [CrossRef] 10. Chen S, Andary M, Buschbacher R, et al. Electrodiagnostic refer-ence values for upper and lower limb nerve conduction studies in adult populations. Muscle Nerve 2016; 54: 371-377. [CrossRef] 11. Padua L, Aprile I, Mazza O, et al. Neurophysiological classifica-tion of ulnar entrapment across the elbow. Neurol Sci 2001; 22: 11-16. [CrossRef] 12. Dorfman LJ, Robinson LR. AAEM minimonograph #47: norma-tive data in electrodiagnostic medicine. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20: 4-14. [CrossRef] 13. Campbell WW. Diagnosis and management of common com-pression and entrapment neuropathies. Neurol Clin 1997; 15: 549-567. [CrossRef] 14. Eliaspour D, Sedighipour L, Hedayati-Moghaddam MR, Rayeg-ani SM, Bahrami MH, Roghani RS. The pattern of muscle involve-ment in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Neurol India 2012; 60: 21 36-39. [CrossRef] 15. Stewart JD. The variable clinical manifestations of ulnar neurop-athies at the elbow. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987;