| Literature DB >> 33160354 |
Yuichi Sasaki1, Tohru Terao2, Emiko Saito2, Keiichiro Ohara2, Shotaro Michishita2, Naoki Kato3, Satoshi Tani3, Yuichi Murayama3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common peripheral nerve compression disorder. However, there is no established opinion regarding the predictors of symptom improvement after surgery. This study aimed to identify the predictors of surgical outcomes of severe carpal tunnel syndrome patients.Entities:
Keywords: Axonal degeneration; Bland’s classification; Carpal tunnel syndrome; Nerve conduction study
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33160354 PMCID: PMC7648948 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03750-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Nerve conduction study of carpal tunnel syndrome. (1) A motor nerve conduction study (MCS) was performed with a surface electrode on the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist and elbow. (2) A sensory nerve conduction study (SCS) was performed with a surface electrode on the second finger and stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist and elbow. (3) The compound muscle action potential (CMAP) was recorded with a surface electrode on the second lumbrical and the first palmar interosseous and stimulation of the median nerve and ulnar nerve. (4) The sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) was recorded with a surface electrode on the fourth finger and stimulation of the median nerve and ulnar nerve. (5) The CMAP was recorded with a surface electrode on the APB and stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist and the palmar region. (6) The SNAP was recorded with a surface electrode on the third finger and stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist and the palmar region. St Median: stimulation of the median nerve; St Ulnar: stimulation of the ulnar nerve
Comparison of the preoperative and postoperative grading scale scores of the improvement group
| Preoperative score | Postoperative score | N |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 3 | 30 | |
| 4 | 4 | |
| 6 | 3 | 10 |
| 4 | 2 |
Comparison of the preoperative and postoperative grading scale scores of the non-improvement group
| Patient | Preoperative score | Preoperative wrist amp | Preoperative palmar amp | Postoperative score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74, M | 5 | 0.38/null | 0.36/null | 5 |
| 81, M | 6 | null/null | null/null | 5 |
| 81, M | 6 | null/null | null/4.5 | 5 |
| 62, F | 6 | null/null | 1.8/null | 6 |
| 61, F | 6 | 0.09/null | 2.8/null | 5 |
| 91, F | 6 | null/null | null/null | 6 |
| 68, M | 6 | null/null | 3.6/null | 6 |
| 55, M | 6 | 1.7/null | 2.2/null | 5 |
| 55, M | 6 | 3.3/null | 5.1/null | 5 |
| 59, M | 5 | 1.2/null | 2.3/null | 5 |
| 60, F | 6 | null/null | 6.0/null | 6 |
M Male, F Female, mV Millivolts, μV Microvolts, amp Amplitude, CMAP Compound muscle action potential, SNAP Sensory nerve action potential
Fig. 2Comparisons of the compound muscle and sensory nerve action potential amplitudes between the two groups. These were recorded during stimulation of the palmar region before surgery. The palmar CMAP and SNAP amplitudes in the non-improvement group were severely reduced or disappeared when compared with the findings of the improvement group (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test)
Results of the questionnaire with a 5-point rating scale after surgery
| Cured | Much better | Better | Unchanged | Worse | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improvement group ( | 24 (49%) | 16 (33%) | 9 (18%) | 0 | 0 |
| Non-improvement group ( | 0 | 2 (18%) | 9 (82%) | 0 | 0 |