4.7 Article

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Diagnosis by Means of Median Nerve Elasticity-Improved Diagnostic Accuracy of US with Sonoelastography

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 270, Issue 2, Pages 481-486

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122901

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the elasticity of the median nerve (MN) between healthy volunteers and patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and to evaluate the diagnostic utility of sonoelastographic measurements of the elasticity of the MN. Materials and Methods: This study was performed with institutional review board approval and written informed consent from all participants. Hands in 22 healthy volunteers and in 31 patients with symptomatic CTS were studied. The cross-sectional area (CSA) and the elasticity of the MN, which was measured as the acoustic coupler (AC)/ MN strain ratio, were evaluated. Results: Both hands in 22 healthy volunteers (three men [mean age, 52.7 years; age range, 41-65 years]; 19 women [mean age, 62.2 years; age range, 40-88 years]) and 43 hands in 31 patients with symptomatic CTS (three men [mean age, 69.0 years; age range, 46-88 years]; 28 women [mean age, 61.2 years; age range, 39-92 years]) were studied. Both the AC/ MN strain ratio and the CSA in the patients with CTS were significantly higher than those in the healthy volunteers (P <.001). The presence of CTS was predicted by means of AC/ MN strain ratio and CSA cutoff values, respectively, of 4.3 and 11 mm(2), with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69, 0.88) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.93). A logistic model that combined the AC/ MN strain ratio and the CSA improved diagnostic accuracy for CTS, with an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.97; P <.001). Conclusion: Sonoelastography provides significant improvement in the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasonographic assessment of CTS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available