4.6 Article

Distribution of paresthesias in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome reflects the degree of nerve damage at wrist

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 1, 页码 228-231

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.09.001

关键词

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; clinical features; neurophysiology; nerve damage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To verify whether the distribution of paresthesias in patients with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is related to the degree of the neurophysiological involvement. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study and retrospectively evaluated 163 patients who referred to our electromyography lab and to which a clinical and electrophysiological diagnosis of CTS was made. We divided the patients into two groups: (1) patients complaining of paresthesias at the hand as a whole and (2) patients with paresthesias in the territory of the median nerve. We referred to the distribution of paresthesias at the hand as GLOVE and to the distribution in the territory of the median nerve as MEDIAN. We compared the neurophysiological impairment in GLOVE and MEDIAN distributions. Moreover, we performed multiple regression analysis to evaluate which clinical-neurophysiological variables determined GLOVE and MEDIAN distribution. Results: In our sample, 70.4% of patients had GLOVE distribution and 29.6% of patients MEDIAN distribution. The risk of presenting MEDIAN distribution increases about twice (OR= 2.07; 95% IC: 1.51-2.83) for each unitary increment of neurophysiological class. Conclusions: The distribution of paresthesias reflects the degree of nerve damage at wrist; patients suffering of SEV/EXT CTS present MEDIAN distribution. Significance: Our data have important clinical implications because they strongly suggest that we have to consider the possibility of a severe neurophysiologicat involvement of the median nerve at wrist in patients complaining of MEDIAN distribution. (c) 2005 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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