Abstract
The aim of this research is to establish, using best available evidence, a clinically appropriate revision of the current CTS nerve conduction grading tool and to evaluate its effectiveness (in terms of acceptability and usability as a tool for intervention prediction). The revised scale is designed from a clinical physiology perspective and is based on numerical values of nerve conduction findings.
Highlights
The pathology of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is described as ‘a neuropathy caused by entrapment of the median nerve at the level of the carpal tunnel’ [1]
The inclusion criteria were based on the referral diagnosis; referral of CTS was considered based on paraesthesia, pain, swelling in median distribution area or digits I-V, worsened by sleep or driving or pins and needles, numbness, tingling or burning in all fingers
Two referrals were not included, because the patients declined to participate in all the study procedures; seven participants’ data sets were excluded from the analysis because the departmental protocol for the peripheral nerve conduction study was not followed
Summary
The pathology of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is described as ‘a neuropathy caused by entrapment of the median nerve at the level of the carpal tunnel’ [1]. Nerve Conduction Studies (NCS) are one of the basic tools used to support the clinical diagnosis. NCS are objective tests that assess the physiological status of the median nerve across the carpal tunnel [2]. The grading tool is used for electro-diagnostic assessment of CTS, in conjunction with the patient’s clinical history and symptoms in order to diagnose the severity of CTS [3]. There are several primary tests performed as a first instance by the primary physician mentioned in different literature, including Phalen’s, Tinel’s and Durkan’s signs which are subjective and are based on patient response. Other tests like Ultrasound, Nerve Conduction and Electromyogram (EMG) needle examination have all been used for CTS grading which are evidence base and not depending on the patient’s clinical response [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
