SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Romatizma Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of an alternative technique with the standard method for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

Karpal tünel sendromu tanısında alternatif teknikle standart yöntemin karşılaştırılması

Haydar GÖK
Saime AY
Şehim KUTLAY
Kurtaiş Yeşim GÜRSEL
Pages
123–127
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)

It was concluded that due to involvement of2L fibers as much as abductor pollicis brevis motor fibers, 2L-INT latency difference can be used as an alternative technique to the standard method in the diagnosis of CTS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We aimed to determine the normal range of latency difference between second lumbrical (21) and interossei (INT) muscles and to compare with standard electrophysiologic technique for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (GTS) in this study. 100 patients complaining of pain and paresthesias in their hands were included in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Control group consisted of 48 healthy individuals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was concluded that due to involvement of2L fibers as much as abductor pollicis brevis motor fibers, 2L-INT latency difference can be used as an alternative technique to the standard method in the diagnosis of CTS.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Parestezi · Aksiyon potansiyelleri · Karpal tünel sendromu

Abstract

We aimed to determine the normal range of latency difference between second lumbrical (21) and interossei (INT) muscles and to compare with standard electrophysiologic technique for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (GTS) in this study. 100 patients complaining of pain and paresthesias in their hands were included in the study. Control group consisted of 48 healthy individuals. All of the patients were undergone standard electrophysiologic evaluation for the diagnosis for CTS. Using alternative tech-nique, we evaluated the difference between the distal motor latencies of I NT and 21 muscles in 42 patients diagnosed as CTS and 48 healthy controls according to the standard technique. Sensitivity and spe-cifity of 2L-INT latency differece in the diagnosis of CTS were found to be high. It was concluded that due to involvement of2L fibers as much as abductor pollicis brevis motor fibers, 2L-INT latency difference can be used as an alternative technique to the standard method in the diagnosis of CTS.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, ikinci lumbrikal (21) ve interosseöz (INT) kaslara ait latans farkının normal değerinin tesbit edilmesi ve karpal tünel sendromu tanısında standart elektrofizyolojik yöntemle karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Ellerinde parestezi ve ağrı şikayeti ile başvuran 100 hasta çalışmaya alındı. 48 sağlıklı kişi kontrol grubunu oluşturdu. Tüm hastalara KTS'na yönelik standart elektrofizyolojik inceleme yapıldı. KTS tanısı konulan 42 hasta ve 48 sağlıklı kişide, alternatif teknik ile, INT ve 2L kaslarına ait distal motor latanslar arasındaki fark araştırıldı. 2L-INT latans farkının KTS tanısındaki duyarlılığı ve özgüllüğü yüksek bulundu. 21 liflerin abdüktör pollisis brevis kasının motor lifleri kadar etkilenmesi nedeniyle, KTS tanısında standart elektrofizyolojik yönteme alternatif olarak kullanılabileceği sonucuna varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖK, H., AY, S., KUTLAY, Ş., GÜRSEL, K. Y. (2003). Comparison of an alternative technique with the standard method for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Romatizma Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3, 123–127. https://ajindex.com/articles/306044

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Stewart JD. Compression and entrapment neuropathies. In: Thomas PK (ed). Peripheral Neuropathy, 3rd ed. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1993, 961-79
  2. Akarırmak Ü. Tuzak Nöropatileri. In: Kutsal YG, Beyazova M. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon. Güneş Kitapevi, 2000; 2071-89
  3. Nakana KK. Nerve entrapment syndromes. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1997; 9: 2165-73
  4. Katz JN, Larson MG, Sabra A, et al. The carpal tunnel syndrome: diagnostic utility of the history and physical examination findings. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 321-7
  5. Gök H, Yalçın P, Karpal Tünel Sendromu Tanısında Klinik Testlerin Önemi. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 1997; 21(1): 31-6
  6. Gordon C, Bowyer BL, Johnson EW. Electrodiagnostic characteristics of acute carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987; 68: 545-48
  7. White JC, Hansen SR, Johnson RK. A comparison of EMG procedures in the carpal tunnel syndrome with clinical- EMG correlations. Muscle Nerve 1988; 11:1177-82
  8. Preston DC, Logigan EL. Lubrical and interossei recording in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1992; 15: 1253- 7
  9. Redmond MD, Rivner MH. False positive electrodiagnostic tests in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1988; 11:511-7
  10. OH SJ. Clinical Electromyography: Nerve conduction studies. 2nd Ed. Baltimore: Williams &Wilkins, 1993: 517-34
  11. Jablecki JK, Andary MT, So YT, Wilkins DE. Literature review of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. AAEM Quality Assurance Committee. Muscle Nerve 1993: 16: 1392-414
  12. Resende LAL, Adamo ASV, Bononi AP et al. Test of a new technique for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Electromyography and Kinesiology 2000;10: 127-33
  13. Seror P. The value of special motor and sensory tests for the diagnosis of being and minor median nerve lesion at the wrist. Am J Phys Med 1995; 74: 124-9
  14. Vogt T, Mika A, Thömke F, Hopf HC. Evaluation of carpal tunnel syndrome in patients with polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20: 153-7
  15. Uncini A, Muzio AD, Awad J, et al. Sensitivity of three median- to-ulnar comparative tests in diagnosis of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1993; 16: 1366-73
  16. Logigan EL, Busis LA, Berger AR, et al. Lumbrical sparing in carpal tunel syndrome: anotomic, physiologic, and diagnostic implications. Neurology 1987; 37: 1499-505.