Betul Yavuz KELES, Burcu ONDER, Mufit AKYUZ

Evaluation of peak or onset latency in the median-versus-ulnar digit four sensory comparison study for diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome

AbstractAim: Peak or onset latency difference of the median and ulnar nerves can be used in the median-versus-ulnar digit 4 sensory comparison study (MUD4CS) for electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This study aimed to investigate the differences in results while using peak or onset latency difference.Material and Methods: The hands of patients with clinical CTS diagnosis but normal median nerve conduction study (NCS) results were included retrospectively in this study. NCSs of the median and ulnar nerves with onset and peak latencies in MUD4CS were recorded. Onset and peak latency differences of the two nerves and also peak-onset latency difference of the median nerve in MUD4CS were calculated. The hands were divided into two groups according to MUD4CS findings: abnormal and normal. The hands in the abnormal group were also divided into peak and onset subgroups.Results: A total of 277 hands were included in this study. Abnormal MUD4CS results were observed in 103 hands; 77 hands based on onset latency difference, and in 76 hands based on peak latency difference. Median sensory conduction velocity was slower and amplitude was smaller in the abnormal group than in the normal group (p=0.003, p=0.027 respectively). Median peak-onset latency difference was significantly greater in the peak subgroup than in the onset subgroup (p=0.0001).Conclusion: It may be more useful to measure both peak and onset latency differences when diagnosing CTS because some cases may be overlooked by using a single latency difference.

PDF

___

1. Padua L, Coraci D, Erra et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome: Clinical features, diagnosis, and management. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:1273-84.
2. Kasius KM, Claes F, Meulstee J, et al. Comparison of peak versus onset latency measurements in electrodiagnostic tests for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;31:382-6.
3. Srikanteswara PK, Cheluvaiah JD, Agadi JB, et al. The Relationship between Nerve Conduction Study and Clinical Grading of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:13-8.
4. Preston, David C. and Barbara E. Shapiro. Electromyography and Neuromuscular Disorders E-Book: Clinical-Electrophysiologic Correlations (Expert Consult-Online). Elsevier Health Sciences 2012.
5. Jablecki CK, Andary MT, Floeter MK, et al. Practice parameter: Electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome: Report of the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.Neurology 2002;58:1589- 92.
6. Alemdar M. Ring finger sensorial conduction studies in grading carpal tunnel syndrome J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2016;29:309-15.
7. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome: Summary statement. Muscle & Nerve 2002;25:918-22.
8. Lew HL, Date ES, Pan SS, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and variability of nerve conduction velocity measurements in carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:12-6.
9. Witt JC, Hentz JG, Stevens JC. Carpal tunnel syndrome with normal nerve conduction studies. Muscle & Nerve 2004 ;29:515-22.
10. Padua L, LoMonaco M, Gregori B, et al. Neurophysiological classification and sensitivity in 500 carpal tunnel syndrome hands. Acta Neurol Scand 1997;96:211-7.
11. Lee WJ, Liao YC, Wei SJ, et al. How to Make Electrodiagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome With Normal Distal Conductions? J Clinical Neurophysiology 2011;28:45-50.
12. Alrawashdeh O. Prevalence of Asymptomatic Neurophysiological Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in 130 Healthy Individuals. Neurol Int 2016;23; 6553
13. Demirci S, Sonel B. Comparison of sensory conduction techniques in the diagnosis of mild idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: which finger, which test? Rheumatol Int 2004;24:217-20.
14. Chang MH1, Liu LH, Lee YC, et al. Comparison of sensitivity of transcarpal median motor conduction velocity and conventional conduction techniques in electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol 2006 117:984-91.
15. Jackson D, Clifford JC. Electrodiagnosis of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:199-204.
16. Salerno DF, Werner RA, Albers JW, et al. A. Reliability of nerve conduction studies among active workers. Muscle & Nerve 1999;22:1372-9.
17. Prakash KM, Fook-Chong S, Leoh TH, et al. Sensitivities of sensory nerve conduction studies parameters in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Clin Neurophysiol 2006;23:565-7.
18. Jablecki CK, Andary MT, So YT, et al. Literature review of the usefulness 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.
19. Harmony RL, Naylor AH. Sensory and mixed nerve action potential temporal dispersion in median neuropathy at the wrist. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999;78:213-21.