Podudarnost kliničke i neurofizološke dijagnoze sindroma karpalnog kanala
Sažetak
Uvod/Cilj. Klinička slika i neurofiziološko ispitivanje veoma su značajni za postavljanje dijagnoze sindroma karpalnog tunela (KTS). Cilj ovog istraživanja bio je da se odredi senzitivnost i specifičnost kliničke dijagnoze sindroma karpalnog tunela (KTS) u odnosu na neurofiziološki nalaz. Metode. Ispitivanjem je bio obuhvaćen 181 bolesnik (81 žena, prosečne starosti 42 ± 14 godina, i 100 muškaraca, prosečne starosti 52 ± 16 godina). Bolesnici su bili upućeni na neurološki pregled za dalju dijagnostiku tegoba u vezi sa bolovima i parestezijama u ruci. Svi bolesnici su potom neurofiziološki ispitani. Rezultati. Od ukupno 181 bolesnika, klinički nalaz za KTS bio je pozitivan kod 37, dok je neurofiziološki nalaz za KTS bio pozitivan kod 60 bolesnika. Kod 31 bolesnika bili su pozitivni i klinički i neurofiziološki nalaz, a oba nalaza su bila negativna kod 115 bolesnika (senzitivnost 0,51, specifičnost 0,95). Zaključak. Niska senzitivnost i visoka specifičnost ukazuju na to da je samo na osnovu kliničkog pregleda pouzdanije isključiti, nego potvrditi dijagnozu KTS. Ovo upućuje na potrebu za neurofiziološkom procenom bolesnika sa tegobama u ruci.
Reference
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.