4.2 Article

Ultrasound in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the cubital tunnel

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
卷 31A, 期 7, 页码 1088-1093

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.06.007

关键词

ulnar nerve; ulnar neuropathy; cubital tunnel; ultrasound; entrapment neuropathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Ulnar neuropathy at the cubital tunnel (UCT) is diagnosed on the basis of history, physical examination, and nerve conduction studies (NCSs); however, the wide spectrum of findings often makes the diagnosis difficult. The purpose of this study was to document the ultrasonographic differences in ulnar nerve size between patients with UCT and control subjects, and to correlate those differences with clinical examination findings and NCS abnormalities, thereby testing the validity of ultrasound (US) as an additional adjunct diagnostic modality for UCT. Methods: Fifteen elbows in 14 patients with symptoms, clinical examination, and NCS findings consistent with UCT had US of the ulnar nerve. Patients were excluded if they had a history of polyneuropathy, acute trauma involving the upper extremity, previous trauma in the region of the elbow (including previous surgery), or brachial plexus injury. The control group consisted of 60 elbows from 30 normal volunteers that also had US. Maximal cross-sectional areas (CSAs) were measured and compared for the 2 groups and a correlation analysis was performed between nerve size and NCS findings. Results: The average CSA of the ulnar nerve was 0.065 cm(2) in the control group, whereas in the UCT group it was 0.19 cm(2), indicating a significant statistical difference in ulnar nerve size between the 2 groups. The Pearson correlation coefficient between motor nerve conduction velocity of the ulnar nerve and the CSA was 0.80. Conclusions: High-resolution US is a noninvasive, safe, and reliable modality for imaging the ulnar nerve at the elbow and it may provide a valuable adjunct to NCS in the diagnosis of UCT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据