OBJECTIVE: To compare the nerve conduction studies in clinically undetectable and detectable sensorimotor polyneuropathy in type 2 diabetics. METHODS: Diagnosed diabetics (n = 60) were divided in two groups. Group 1 (n1 = 30) with clinically undetectable and group 2 (n2 = 30) with clinically detectable Diabetic Polyneuropathy. Detection of the sensorimotor neuropathy was done according to Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom Score and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination scores. The simplified nerve conduction studies protocol was followed in recording amplitudes, velocities and latencies of minimum two (Sural, Peroneal) and maximum six i.e. three sensory (Sural, Ulnar, Median) and three motor (Peroneal, Ulnar, Tibial) nerves. RESULTS: The comparisons were done between different parameters of nerve conduction studies with the neurological scores in undetectable and detectable groups using Pearson's chi square test. The amplitudes, velocities, latencies, outcome and grading of neuropathy in nerve conduction studies when compared with neurological detection scores showed a significant relation in each group regarding evaluation (p = 0.005, p = 0.004, p = 0.05, p = 0.00001, p = 0.003 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom Score and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination Score together can help in prompt evaluation of the diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy though nerve conduction study is more powerful test and can help in diagnosing subclinical cases.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the nerve conduction studies in clinically undetectable and detectable sensorimotor polyneuropathy in type 2 diabetics. METHODS: Diagnosed diabetics (n = 60) were divided in two groups. Group 1 (n1 = 30) with clinically undetectable and group 2 (n2 = 30) with clinically detectable Diabetic Polyneuropathy. Detection of the sensorimotor neuropathy was done according to Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom Score and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination scores. The simplified nerve conduction studies protocol was followed in recording amplitudes, velocities and latencies of minimum two (Sural, Peroneal) and maximum six i.e. three sensory (Sural, Ulnar, Median) and three motor (Peroneal, Ulnar, Tibial) nerves. RESULTS: The comparisons were done between different parameters of nerve conduction studies with the neurological scores in undetectable and detectable groups using Pearson's chi square test. The amplitudes, velocities, latencies, outcome and grading of neuropathy in nerve conduction studies when compared with neurological detection scores showed a significant relation in each group regarding evaluation (p = 0.005, p = 0.004, p = 0.05, p = 0.00001, p = 0.003 respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Diabetic Neuropathy Symptom Score and Diabetic Neuropathy Examination Score together can help in prompt evaluation of the diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy though nerve conduction study is more powerful test and can help in diagnosing subclinical cases.