Concoradance of clinical and neurophysiologic diagnoses of carpal tunnel syndrome

Vesna V Martić

doi:10.2298/3773

Vesna V Martić Clinic for Neurology, Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy, University of Defense, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/3773

Keywords: carpal tunnel syndrome, diagnosis, signs and symptoms, sensitivity and specificity,

Abstract

Introduction/Aim. Clinical presentation and neurophysiological examination are crucial in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The aim of this study was to determine sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination for diagnosing of CTS in relation to neurophysiological evaluation. Methods. The sample included 181 patients referred to the neurologist for further diagnosis of pain and parestesias in the arm (81 women and 100 men mean age 42 ± 14 years and 52 ± 16 years, respectively). All the patients were neurophysiologicly tested. Results. Out of 181 patients, clinical findings were considered positive for CTS in 37 patients. The neurophysiological findings for CTS were positive in 60 patients. Both clinical and neurophysiological findings were positive in 31 patients and both findings were negative in 115 patients (sensitivity 0.51; specificity 0.95). Conclusion. Low sensitivity and high specificity suggest that it is easier to exclude rather than to accurately diagnose CTS based on clinical examination alone. Thus, there is the need for neurophysiological evaluation of patients with complains in the arm.

Author Biography

Vesna V Martić, Clinic for Neurology, Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy, University of Defense, Belgrade, Serbia

Docent, doktor nauka

Klinika za neurologiju

References

American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Ameri-can Academy of Neurology, and American Academy of Physi-cal Medicine and Rehabilitation. Practice parameter for elec-trodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome: summary statement. Muscle Nerve 2002; 25(6): 918−22.

American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Litera-ture review of the usefulness of nerve conduction studies and needle electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve Suppl 1999; 22: S145−67.

Mackinnon SE, Novak CB, Landau WM. Clinical diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. JAMA 2000; 284(15): 1924−5; author reply 1925−6.

Nathan P, Takigawa K, Keniston R, Meadows K, Lockwood R. Slow-ing of sensory conduction of the median nerve and carpal tunnel syndrome in Japanese and American industrial workers. J Hand Surg 1994; 19(1): 30−4.

Neligan A, O'Sullivan SS, Mullins GM, McCarthy A, Kowalski RG, Kinsella J, et al. A review of nerve conduction studies in cases of suspected compression neuropathies of the upper limb. Eur Neurol 2010; 63(1): 11−6.

Pease WS, Cannell CD, Johnson EW. Median to radial latency dif-ference test in mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1989; 12(11): 905−9.

Sander HW, Quinto C, Saadeh PB, Chokroverty S. Sensitive me-dian-ulnar motor comparative techniques in carpal tunnel syn-drome. Muscle Nerve 1999; 22(1): 88−98. Seror P. Tinel's sign in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg 1987; 12(3): 364−5.

Stevens JC, Smith BE, Weaver AL, Bosch EP, Deen HG, Wilkens JA. Symptoms of 100 patients with electromyographically veri-fied carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1999; 22(10): 1448−56.

Werner RA, Franzblau A, Albers JW, Buchele H, Armstrong TJ. Use of screening nerve conduction studies for predicting future carpal tunnel syndrome. Occup Environ Med 1997; 54(2): 96−100.

Werner RA, Andary M. Carpal tunnel syndrome: pathophysiol-ogy and clinical neurophysiology. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113(9): 1373−81.

You H, Simmons Z, Freivalds A, Kothari MJ, Naidu SH. Relation-ships between clinical symptom severity scales and nerve con-duction measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1999; 22(4): 497−501.