Journals / Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 3

Lumbrical-interosseous recording technique versus routine electrodiagnostic methods in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

Pages
230–238
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

Therefore, L-I method can be applied as a supportive technique in the evaluation of patients with CTS

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of second lumbrical-interosseous (L-I) technique and to compare the results with other electrophysiological methods in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).Patients and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in an electrophysiology laboratory of a university hospital between January 2003 and January 2004.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 102 patients with CTS (174 hands) and 40 healthy controls (80 hands) were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, L-I method can be applied as a supportive technique in the evaluation of patients with CTS
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of second lumbrical-interosseous (L-I) technique and to compare the results with other electrophysiological methods in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).Patients and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in an electrophysiology laboratory of a university hospital between January 2003 and January 2004. A total of 102 patients with CTS (174 hands) and 40 healthy controls (80 hands) were included. Median motor nerve conduction studies were obtained with recordings from the abductor pollicis brevis (APB), median sensory nerve conduction studies from digits I-III and at palm-wrist segment (P-W), median-ulnar sensory comparison at digit IV (M-U), and median-radial sensory comparison at digit I (M-R) were along with L-I technique.Results: The highest sensitivities were found in the median sensory conduction velocity across the palm-wrist (88%), and digit I-wrist segments (80%), median motor distal latency over the APB (77%), and L-I study (76%). The specificities of conventional tests were higher than the sensitivity of L-I method (63%).Conclusion: L-I method has a good diagnostic sensitivity in CTS; however, P-W, median sensory nerve conduction velocity at digit I and median distal motor latency are more sensitive than L-I method. Therefore, L-I method can be applied as a supportive technique in the evaluation of patients with CTS

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDÜZ, O. H., AKYÜZ, G., YILMAZ, F. (2022). Lumbrical-interosseous recording technique versus routine electrodiagnostic methods in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 3, 230–238. https://ajindex.com/articles/628599

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Logigian EL, Busis NA, Berger AR, Bruyninckx F, Khalil N, Shahani BT, et al. Lumbrical sparing in carpal tunnel syndrome: anatomic, physiologic, and diagnostic implications. Neurology 1987;37:1499-505
  2. Oh SJ. Nerve conduction in focal neuropathies. In: Oh SJ, editor. Clinical Electromyography, Nerve Conduction Studies. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 601-94
  3. Thomas PK. Motor nerve conduction in the carpal tunnel syndrome. Neurology 1960;10:1045-50
  4. Raudino F. Tethered median nerve stress test in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2000;40:57-60
  5. Katz JN, Larson MG, Sabra A, Krarup C, Stirrat CR, Sethi R, et al. The carpal tunnel syndrome: diagnostic utility of the history and physical examination findings. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:321-7
  6. Oh SJ. Nerve conduction techniques. In: Oh SJ, editor. Clinical Electromyography, Nerve Conduction Studies. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 37-53
  7. Yates SK, Yaworski R, Brown WF. Relative preservation of lumbrical versus thenar motor fibres in neurogenic disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1981;44:768-74
  8. Therimadasamy AK, Li E, Wilder-Smith EP. Can studies of the second lumbrical interossei and its premotor potential reduce the number of tests for carpal tunnel syndrome? Muscle Nerve 2007;36:491-6
  9. Stevens JC. AAEM minimonograph #26: the electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Muscle Nerve 1997;20:1477-86
  10. Boonyapisit K, Katirji B, Shapiro BE, Preston DC. Lumbrical and interossei recording in severe carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 2002;25:102-5
  11. Chang MH, Wei SJ, Chiang HL, Wang HM, Hsieh PF, Huang SY. Comparison of motor conduction techniques in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Neurology 2002;58:1603-7
  12. Kuntzer T. Carpal tunnel syndrome in 100 patients: sensitivity, specificity of multi-neurophysiological procedures and estimation of axonal loss of motor, sensory and sympathetic median nerve fibers. J Neurol Sci 1994;127:221-9
  13. Padua L, Lo Monaco M, Valente EM, Tonali PA. A useful electrophysiologic parameter for diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1996;19:48-53
  14. Aydin G, Keleş I, Ozbudak Demir S, Baysal AI. Sensitivity of median sensory nerve conduction tests in digital branches for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004;83:17-21. 15. de Azevedo JW, de Oliveira AB,