We have located links that may give you full text access.
Effect of Elbow Position on Short-segment Nerve Conduction Study in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.
Chinese Medical Journal 2016 May 6
BACKGROUND: The appropriate elbow position of short-segment nerve conduction study (SSNCS) to diagnose cubital tunnel syndrome (CubTS) is still controversial. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of different elbow positions at full extension and 70° flexion on SSNCS in CubTS.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the clinical data of seventy elbows from 59 CubTS patients between September, 2011 and December, 2014 in the Peking University First Hospital were included as CubTS group. Moreover, thirty healthy volunteers were included as the healthy group. SSNCS were conducted in all subjects at elbow full extension and 70° elbow flexion. Paired nonparametric test, bivariate correlation, Bland-Altman, and Chi-squared test analysis were used to compare the effectiveness of elbow full extension and 70° flexion elbow positions on SSNCS in CubTS patients.
RESULTS: Data of upper limit was calculated from healthy group, and abnormal latency was judged accordingly. CubTS group's latency and compound muscle action potential (CMAP) of each segment at 70° elbow flexion by SSNCS was compared with full extension position, no statistically significant difference were found (all P > 0.05). Latency and CMAP of each segment at elbow full extension and 70° flexion were correlated (all P < 0.01), except the latency of segment of 4 cm to 6 cm above elbow (P = 0.43), and the latency (P = 0.15) and the CMAP (P = 0.06) of segment of 2 cm to 4 cm below elbow. Bivariate correlation and Bland-Altman analysis proved the correlation between elbow full extension and 70° flexion. Especially in segments across the elbow (2 cm above the elbow and 2 cm below it), latency at elbow full extension and 70° flexion were strong direct associated (r = 0.83, P < 0.01; r = 0.55, P < 0.01), and so did the CMAP (r = 0.49, P < 0.01; r = 0.72, P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in abnormality of each segment at full extension as measured by SSNCS compared with that at 70° flexion (P > 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in the diagnosis of CubTS with the elbow at full extension compared with that at 70° flexion during SSNCS. We suggest that elbow positon at full extension can also be used during SSNCS.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the clinical data of seventy elbows from 59 CubTS patients between September, 2011 and December, 2014 in the Peking University First Hospital were included as CubTS group. Moreover, thirty healthy volunteers were included as the healthy group. SSNCS were conducted in all subjects at elbow full extension and 70° elbow flexion. Paired nonparametric test, bivariate correlation, Bland-Altman, and Chi-squared test analysis were used to compare the effectiveness of elbow full extension and 70° flexion elbow positions on SSNCS in CubTS patients.
RESULTS: Data of upper limit was calculated from healthy group, and abnormal latency was judged accordingly. CubTS group's latency and compound muscle action potential (CMAP) of each segment at 70° elbow flexion by SSNCS was compared with full extension position, no statistically significant difference were found (all P > 0.05). Latency and CMAP of each segment at elbow full extension and 70° flexion were correlated (all P < 0.01), except the latency of segment of 4 cm to 6 cm above elbow (P = 0.43), and the latency (P = 0.15) and the CMAP (P = 0.06) of segment of 2 cm to 4 cm below elbow. Bivariate correlation and Bland-Altman analysis proved the correlation between elbow full extension and 70° flexion. Especially in segments across the elbow (2 cm above the elbow and 2 cm below it), latency at elbow full extension and 70° flexion were strong direct associated (r = 0.83, P < 0.01; r = 0.55, P < 0.01), and so did the CMAP (r = 0.49, P < 0.01; r = 0.72, P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in abnormality of each segment at full extension as measured by SSNCS compared with that at 70° flexion (P > 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in the diagnosis of CubTS with the elbow at full extension compared with that at 70° flexion during SSNCS. We suggest that elbow positon at full extension can also be used during SSNCS.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app