European Neurology
Original Paper
A Review of Nerve Conduction Studies in Cases of Suspected Compression Neuropathies of the Upper LimbNeligan A.a, c · O’Sullivan S.S.b, c · Mullins G.M.a · McCarthy A.b · Kowalski R.G.b · Kinsella J.b · McNamara B.aDepartments of aNeurophysiology and bNeurology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; cUCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: May 04, 2009
Accepted: August 25, 2009
Published online: November 14, 2009
Issue release date: January 2010
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 0014-3022 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9913 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ENE
Abstract
Introduction: Entrapment neuropathies, particularly those affecting upper limbs, are common reasons for referral for nerve conduction studies (NCS). However, concordance between clinical findings and NCS findings, especially in patients being considered for intervention including decompressive surgery, has not been assessed. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using records from a tertiary referral centre’s neurophysiology database. We aimed to establish the proportions of agreement between the suspected clinical diagnosis as defined by the referring clinician and NCS findings in the setting of an upper limb entrapment neuropathy. Results: Of the 571 referrals for NCS, suspected bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was the commonest reason for referral (30.5%). In total, there was 51.5% concordance between suspected clinical diagnosis and NCS findings. Patients with NCS evidence of an entrapment neuropathy (n = 437) were more likely to be older compared to those with normal studies (54.0 ± 15.6 years vs. 45.9 ± 13.4 years, p < 0.001). Those with normal NCS findings were more likely to be female (72%, p = 0.001). An alternative or additional diagnosis was found in 14%. Conclusion: This study raises concerns regarding the appropriateness of referral for decompressive surgery based on clinical diagnosis alone as many have an additional or alternative diagnosis as suggested by NCS findings.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Ferry S, Pritchard T, Keenan J, Croft P, Silman AJ: Estimating the prevalence of delayed median nerve conduction studies in the general population. Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:630–635.
- Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R, Omstein E, Ranstam J, Rosen I: Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. JAMA 1999;282:153–158.
-
Jablecki CK, Andary MT, So YT, Wilkins DE, Williams FH: 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;16:1392–1414.
External Resources
- 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;58:1589–1592.
- Johnsen B, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Vingtoft S, et al: Differences in the handling of the EMG examination at seven European laboratories. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994;93:155–158.
- Redmond MD, Rivier MH: False positive electrodiagnostic tests in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1988;11:511–518.
- Nathan PA, Keniston RC, Myers LD, Meadows KD, Lockwood RS: Natural history of median nerve sensory conduction in industry. Muscle Nerve 1998;21:711–721.
- Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, et al: A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:1585–1592.
- Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310.
-
American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Campbell WW: Guidelines in electrodiagnostic medicine. Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 1999;8:S171–S205.
- Bland JD, Rudolfer SM: Clinical surveillance of carpal tunnel syndrome in two areas of the United Kingdom, 1991–2001. JNNP 2003;74:1674–1679.
- Brüske J, Bednarski M, Grzelec H, et al: The usefulness of the Phalen test and the Hoffmann-Tinel sign in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Acta Orthop Belg 2002;68:141–145.
- Mondelli M, Passero S, Giannini F: Provocative tests in different stages of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2001;103:178–183.
- Podnar S: Critical reappraisal of referrals to electromyography and nerve conduction studies. Eur J Neurol 2005;12:150–155.
- Kothari MJ, Blakeslee MA, Reichwein R, et al: Electrodiagnostic studies: are they useful in clinical practice? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1510–1511.
- Kaur S, Stechuchak KM, Coffman CJ, et al: Gender differences in health care utilization among veterans with chronic pain. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:228–233.
- Glowacki KA, Breen CJ, Sachar K, Weiss AP: Electrodiagnostic testing and carpal tunnel release outcome. J Hand Surg Am 1996;21:117–121.
- Mondelli M, Reale F, Sicurelli F, Padua L: Relationship between the self-administered Boston questionnaire and electrophysiological findings in follow-up of surgically-treated carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br 2000;25:128–134.
- Finsen V, Russwurm H: Neurophysiology not required before surgery for typical carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br 2001;26:61–64.
- Smith NJ: Nerve conduction studies for carpal tunnel syndrome: essential prelude to surgery or unnecessary luxury? J Hand Surg Br 2002;27:83–85.
- Wright SA, Liggett N: Nerve conduction studies as a routine diagnostic aid in carpal tunnel syndrome. Rheumatology 2003;42:602–603.
- Grundberg AB: Carpal tunnel decompression in spite of normal electromyography. J Hand Surg Am 1983;8:348–349.
- Kitsis CK, Savvidou O, Alam A, Cherry RJ: Carpal tunnel syndrome despite negative neurophysiological studies. Acta Orthop Belg 2002;68:135–140.
- Beekman R, Wokke JH, Schoemaker MC, Lee ML, Visser LH: Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: follow-up and prognostic factors determining outcome. Neurology 2004;63:1675–1680.
- Mondelli M, Giannini F, Morana P, Rossi S: Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: predictive value of clinical and electrophysiological measurements for surgical outcome. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2004;44:349–356.
- Smith T, Nielsen KD, Poulsgaard L: Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: clinical and electrophysiological outcome of surgical and conservative treatment. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2000;34:145–148.
- Matsuzaki H, Yoshizu T, Maki Y, Tsubokawa N, Yamamato Y, Toishi S: Long-term clinical and neurologic recovery in the hand after surgery for severe cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2004;29:373–378.
- Mondelli M, Filippou G, Gallo A, et al: Diagnostic utility of ultrasonography versus nerve conduction in mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:357–366.
- Beckman R, Schoemaker MC, Van der Plas JPL, et al: Diagnostic value of high-resolution sonography in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Neurology 2004;62:767–773.
- Rigler I, Podnar S: Impact of electromyographic findings on choice of treatment and outcome. Eur J Neurol 2007;14:783–787.
- Bland JD: Do nerve conduction studies predict the outcome of carpal tunnel decompression? Muscle Nerve 2001;24:935–940.
- Rotman MB, Enkvetchakul BV, Megerian JT, Gozani SN: Time course and predictors of median nerve conduction after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am 2004;29:367–372.
Article / Publication Details
Received: May 04, 2009
Accepted: August 25, 2009
Published online: November 14, 2009
Issue release date: January 2010
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 0014-3022 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9913 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ENE
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
