Pınar DORUK, Mehmet ADAM, Berrin LEBLEBİCİ

Sağlıklı gönüllülerde, el bilek fleksiyonu elektrofizyolojik çalışmaları etkiliyor mu?

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada sağlıklı gönüllülerde beş dakikalık el bilek fleksiyonunun, karpal tünel sendromu (KTS) tanısında kullanılan sinir iletim çalışmalarından olan, median sinir distal duyu latansı (ddl), 1. parmak median-radial ddl farkı, 4. parmak median-ulnar ddl farkına etkisini araştırmak amaçlanmıştır. GEREÇ-YÖNTEM: Çalışma 20 kadın ve 5 erkek olmak üzere 25 sağlıklı gönüllü (toplam 46 el) üzerinde yapıldı. Median ddl, 1. parmak median-radial ddl farkı ve 4. parmak median-ulnar ddl farkı incelendi. Beş dakikalık provokatif bilateral 90° el bilek fleksiyonunu takiben bahsedilen testler tekrarlandı. BULGULAR: Çalışmaya alınan gönüllülerin yaş ortalaması 32,8±8,4 yıl idi. Ortalama median sinir ddl, provokasyon öncesi 2,71±0,19 milisaniye (msn) iken, provokasyon sonrası 2,73±0,17 msn idi. Ortalama median sinir amplitüdü önce 35,8±21,8 mikrovolt iken, provokasyon sonrası 40,2±22,2 mikrovolt idi. 4.parmak median-ulnar ddl farkı, provokasyon öncesi 0,12±0,18 msn, provokasyon sonrası 0,15±0,19 msn bulundu. 1. parmak median-radial ddl farkı ise önce 0,13±0,23 msn iken provokasyon sonrası 0,24±0,47 msn idi. Provokasyon öncesi ve sonrası median sinir 3. parmak ddl ve amplitüdü, 1. parmak median-radial ddl farkı, 4. parmak median-ulnar ddl farkı değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p>0,05). SONUÇ: Sağlıklı gönüllülerde el bilek fleksiyonu şeklindeki provokasyon, elektrofizyolojik çalışmaları etkilememektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

El bilek fleksiyonu, sinir iletim hızları, fark testleri

Does the wrist flexion affect on the electrophysiological studies in the healthy voluntaries?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects on the median nerve distal sensory latencies (dsl), first digit median vs. radial sensory latency difference, fourth digit median vs. ulnar sensory latency difference which are repeated after performing the provocative wrist flexion for about five minutes in the healhty voluntaries. MATERIALS-METHODS: In this study, 20 women, 5 men voluntaries (total 46 hands) were investigated. The median nerve dsl, the first digit median vs. radial sensory latency differences, the fourth digit median vs. ulnar sensory latency differences were recorded. After performing the provocative wrist flexion (bilaterally 90 degree) for about five minutes, above mentioned studies were repeated. RESULTS: The mean age of the voluntaries in the study was 32.8±8.4 years. Before and after provocation, the mean dsl of median nerve was 2.71±0.19 msc, and 2.73±0.17 msc, and the mean amplitude of median nerve was 35.8±21.8, and 40.2±22.2 microvolt, the mean of fourth digit median vs. ulnar sensory latency differences was 0.12±0.18 msc, and 0.15±0.19 msc, the mean of first digit median vs. radial sensory latency differences was 0.13±0.23 msc and 0.24±0.47 msc, respectively. Statistically, there were no significance between before and after the provocation at the mean value of amplitude and dsl, the median vs. radial first digit and the median vs. ulnar fourth digit sensory latency differences measurements (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The provocative wrist flexion in the healthy voluntaries has no effect on the electrophysiological studies.

Keywords:

Wrist flexion, nerve conduction study, difference tests.,

PDF

___

Preston DC, Shapiro B. Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders, clinical-electrophysiologic correlations. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2005; 255-79.
Werner RA, Andary M. Carpal tunnel syndrome: pathophysiology and clinical neurophysiology. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113(9):1373–81.
Aroori S, Spence RA. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Ulster Med J 2008;77(1):6-17.
Gomes I, Becker J, Ehlers JA, Nora DB. Prediction of the neurophysiological diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome from the demographic and clinical data. Clin Neurophysiol 2006;117(5):964-71.
Jablecki CK, Andary MT, So YT, Wilkins DE, Williams FH. Literature review of the usefulness of nerve conductıon studies and electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1993;16(12):1392-1414.
Nora DB, Becker J, Ehlers JA, Gomes I. Clinical features of 1039 patients with neurophysiological diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2004;107(1):64-9.
Ortiz-Corredor F, Calambas N, Mendoza-Pulido C, Galeano J, Díaz- Ruíz J, Delgado O. Factor analysis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire in relation to nerve conduction studies. Clin Neurophysiol 2011 March 29 (Epub ahead of print).
Bodofsky EB, Wu KD, Campellone JV, Greenberg WM, Tomaio AC. A sensitive new median-ulnar technique syndrome. 2005;45(3):139-44.
mild carpal tunnel Clin Neurophysiol.
Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R, Ornstein E, Ranstam J, Rosen I. Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome 1999;282(2):153–8. population. JAMA
Sandin KJ, Asch SM, Jablecki CK, Kilmer DD, Nuckols TK; Carpal Tunnel Quality Group. Clinical quality measures for electrodiagnosis in suspected carpal 2010;41(4):444-52. Muscle Nerve
Chang MH, Liu LH, Lee YC, Wei SJ, Chiang HL, Hsieh PF. Comparison of sensitivity of transcarpal median motor conduction velocity and conventional conduction techniques in electro diagnosis of carpal tunnel 2006;117(5):984–91. Clin Neurophysiol
Dunnan JB, Waylonis GW. Wrist flexion as an adjunct to the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72(3):211-3 (abs).
Emad MR, Najafi SH, Sepehrian MH. The effect of provocative tests on electrodiagnosis criteria in clinical carpal tunnel syndrome. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2009;19(6):1061-63.
Hansson S, Nilsson BY. Median sensory nerve conduction block during wrist flexion in the carpal tunnel syndrome. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;35(2):99-105.