一项前瞻性研究,探讨超声测定正中神经横截面积与神经传导调查在腕管综合征诊断中的敏感性

Tamim Khanbhai, B. Hameed, Peter Resteghini
{"title":"一项前瞻性研究,探讨超声测定正中神经横截面积与神经传导调查在腕管综合征诊断中的敏感性","authors":"Tamim Khanbhai, B. Hameed, Peter Resteghini","doi":"10.1179/1753615415Y.0000000006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is currently investigated with nerve conduction studies (NCS) for diagnosis, but these are expensive and invasive. We propose that ultrasound (US) will be comparable to NCS in diagnosing CTS. Method There were two groups in this study – a control (60 wrists) and symptomatic group (56 wrists), who all underwent a clinical examination. US measurements of the median nerve were the cross-sectional area of the carpal tunnel at the level of pisiform (CSAc), pronator quadratus (CSAp), 12 cm proximally in the mid-forearm (CSAmf) and palmar bowing of the flexor retinaculum. The main calculation was the CSA difference (CSAd = CSAc − CSAp). Results In the symptomatic group, NCS diagnosed 32/56 cases (sensitivity 57%). In the control group, the mean CSAc was 8.36 mm2, CSAd of 0.57 mm2, and palmar bowing 1.18 mm. The symptomatic group mean CSAc was 13.73 mm2, CSAd of 5.02 mm2, and palmar bowing 4.02 mm. With a threshold value of 10 mm2 for the CSAc, 48/56 cases were diagnosed with CTS, with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 95%. For CSAd with a threshold at 2 mm, 50 cases were identified with CTS with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 97%. Palmar bowing had a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 95%. NCS correlated strongly with CSAd (P = 0.007). Discussion In our study, the US results were statistically significant compared to NCS, with higher sensitivity and specificity. We propose that US should be the first line investigation for the diagnosis of CTS unless there are clinical indications to use NCS.","PeriodicalId":88907,"journal":{"name":"International musculoskeletal medicine","volume":"37 1","pages":"100 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753615415Y.0000000006","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A prospective study examining the sensitivity of ultrasound determined median nerve cross-sectional area with nerve conduction investigation in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome\",\"authors\":\"Tamim Khanbhai, B. Hameed, Peter Resteghini\",\"doi\":\"10.1179/1753615415Y.0000000006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is currently investigated with nerve conduction studies (NCS) for diagnosis, but these are expensive and invasive. We propose that ultrasound (US) will be comparable to NCS in diagnosing CTS. Method There were two groups in this study – a control (60 wrists) and symptomatic group (56 wrists), who all underwent a clinical examination. US measurements of the median nerve were the cross-sectional area of the carpal tunnel at the level of pisiform (CSAc), pronator quadratus (CSAp), 12 cm proximally in the mid-forearm (CSAmf) and palmar bowing of the flexor retinaculum. The main calculation was the CSA difference (CSAd = CSAc − CSAp). Results In the symptomatic group, NCS diagnosed 32/56 cases (sensitivity 57%). In the control group, the mean CSAc was 8.36 mm2, CSAd of 0.57 mm2, and palmar bowing 1.18 mm. The symptomatic group mean CSAc was 13.73 mm2, CSAd of 5.02 mm2, and palmar bowing 4.02 mm. With a threshold value of 10 mm2 for the CSAc, 48/56 cases were diagnosed with CTS, with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 95%. For CSAd with a threshold at 2 mm, 50 cases were identified with CTS with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 97%. Palmar bowing had a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 95%. NCS correlated strongly with CSAd (P = 0.007). Discussion In our study, the US results were statistically significant compared to NCS, with higher sensitivity and specificity. We propose that US should be the first line investigation for the diagnosis of CTS unless there are clinical indications to use NCS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International musculoskeletal medicine\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"100 - 93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/1753615415Y.0000000006\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International musculoskeletal medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753615415Y.0000000006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International musculoskeletal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/1753615415Y.0000000006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要目的腕管综合征(CTS)目前主要通过神经传导研究(NCS)进行诊断,但这些方法昂贵且具有侵入性。我们建议超声(US)在诊断CTS方面可与NCS相媲美。方法将患者分为对照组(60个腕关节)和症状组(56个腕关节)进行临床检查。正中神经的超声测量是腕管在髌状肌(CSAc)、方旋肌(CSAp)、前臂中部近12 cm处(CSAmf)和屈肌支持带掌弓处的横截面积。主要计算CSA差值(CSAd = CSAc−CSAp)。结果在有症状组,NCS诊断32/56例(敏感性57%)。对照组平均CSAc为8.36 mm2, CSAd为0.57 mm2,掌弓1.18 mm。症状组平均CSAc 13.73 mm2, CSAd 5.02 mm2,掌弓4.02 mm。CSAc的阈值为10 mm2, 48/56例被诊断为CTS,敏感性为86%,特异性为95%。对于阈值为2 mm的CSAd, 50例用CTS诊断,灵敏度为89%,特异性为97%。掌弓的敏感性为96%,特异性为95%。NCS与CSAd呈正相关(P = 0.007)。在我们的研究中,与NCS相比,US结果具有统计学意义,具有更高的敏感性和特异性。我们建议,除非有临床适应症,否则美国应作为诊断CTS的一线调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A prospective study examining the sensitivity of ultrasound determined median nerve cross-sectional area with nerve conduction investigation in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome
Abstract Objectives Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is currently investigated with nerve conduction studies (NCS) for diagnosis, but these are expensive and invasive. We propose that ultrasound (US) will be comparable to NCS in diagnosing CTS. Method There were two groups in this study – a control (60 wrists) and symptomatic group (56 wrists), who all underwent a clinical examination. US measurements of the median nerve were the cross-sectional area of the carpal tunnel at the level of pisiform (CSAc), pronator quadratus (CSAp), 12 cm proximally in the mid-forearm (CSAmf) and palmar bowing of the flexor retinaculum. The main calculation was the CSA difference (CSAd = CSAc − CSAp). Results In the symptomatic group, NCS diagnosed 32/56 cases (sensitivity 57%). In the control group, the mean CSAc was 8.36 mm2, CSAd of 0.57 mm2, and palmar bowing 1.18 mm. The symptomatic group mean CSAc was 13.73 mm2, CSAd of 5.02 mm2, and palmar bowing 4.02 mm. With a threshold value of 10 mm2 for the CSAc, 48/56 cases were diagnosed with CTS, with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 95%. For CSAd with a threshold at 2 mm, 50 cases were identified with CTS with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 97%. Palmar bowing had a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 95%. NCS correlated strongly with CSAd (P = 0.007). Discussion In our study, the US results were statistically significant compared to NCS, with higher sensitivity and specificity. We propose that US should be the first line investigation for the diagnosis of CTS unless there are clinical indications to use NCS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Musculo-skeletal and neurological aspects of Lyme disease Lyme disease: A patient's journey The effectiveness of scapular taping on pain and function in people with subacromial impingement syndrome: A systematic review A pragmatic randomized controlled trial to compare a novel group physiotherapy programme with a standard group exercise programme for managing chronic low back pain in primary care End of an era
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1