Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2024-12-24
Abstract Views: 0
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v185i12.2815
Issue
Vol. 185 No. 12 (2024)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Hướng, N. V., Tuấn, L. B., Hiền, N. T., Đan, N. V., Mai, N. T. Q., & Định, N. T. (2024). Correlation between clinical features and neuroelectrophysiological features in the ulnar neuropathy. Journal of Medical Research, 185(12), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v185i12.2815

Correlation between clinical features and neuroelectrophysiological features in the ulnar neuropathy

Nguyen Van Huong, Le Ba Tuan, Nguyen Thi Hien, Nguyen Van Dan, Nguyen Thi Quynh Mai, Nguyen Thi Dinh

Main Article Content

Abstract

Our study was conducted to describe the clinical and neuroelectrophysiological data of ulnar neuropathy, and to analyze the correlation between clinical features and neuroelectrophysiological features in ulnar neuropathy. It was a cross-sectional study on 37 diseased arms of 32 patients diagnosed with ulnar neuropathy at Hanoi Medical University Hospital and Friendship Hospital from July 2021 to August 2022.The average age of the study subjects was 46.0 ± 16.2 years old, mainly male (65.6%), the average duration of the disease was 5.84 ± 8.06 months; the disease was most common in manual laborers (62.5%). The common lesion location was in the ulnar nerve groove with 24/37 cases (64.9%). According to the Padua classification, the degree of electrophysiological damage was common in the very mild (32.4%), moderate (29.7%) and severe (29.7%) groups. There was a correlation between the clinical damage level according to the McGowan classification and the Padua electrophysiological classification with p < 0.001. There was a significant correlation between the mean DASH score and the electrophysiological classification (p < 0.01). There was a positive correlation between the mean DASH score and the electrophysiological classification (high correlation with r = 0.612, p < 0.05).

Article Details

Keywords

Ulnar neuropathy, neuroelectrophysiological features

References

1. Bains S, Rocha Cabrero F. Electrodiagnostic Evaluation of Ulnar Neuropathy. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024. Accessed September 19, 2024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564408/.
2. An TW, Evanoff BA, Boyer MI, Osei DA. The Prevalence of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study in a U.S. Metropolitan Cohort. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99(5): 408-416. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01162.
3. Mondelli M, Giannini F, Ballerini M, Ginanneschi F, Martorelli E. Incidence of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow in the province of Siena (Italy). J Neurol Sci. 2005; 234(1-2): 5-10. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2005.02.010.
4. Visser LH, Beekman R, Franssen H. Short-segment nerve conduction studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 2005; 31(3): 331-338. doi:10.1002/mus.20248.
5. Todnem K, Michler RP, Wader TE, Engstrøm M, Sand T. The impact of extended electrodiagnostic studies in Ulnar Neuropathy at the elbow. BMC Neurol. 2009; 9(1): 52. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-9-52.
6. Osterman AL, Davis CA. Subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Hand Clin. 1996; 12(2): 421-433.
7. Practice parameter: electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology. 1999; 52(4): 688-690. doi:10.1212/wnl.52.4.688.
8. Beekman R, Van Der Plas JPL, Uitdehaag BMJ, Schellens RLLA, Visser LH. Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and sonographic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 2004; 30(2): 202-208. doi:10.1002/mus.20093.
9. Cobb TK, Walden AL, Merrell PT, Lemke JH. Setting Expectations following Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. HAND. 2014; 9(3): 356-363. doi:10.1007/s11552-014-9629-7.
10. Raeissadat SA, Youseffam P, Bagherzadeh L, Rayegani SM, Bahrami MH, Eliaspour D. Electrodiagnostic Findings in 441 Patients with Ulnar Neuropathy - a Retrospective Study. Orthop Res Rev. 2019; Volume 11: 191-198. doi:10.2147/ORR.S230116.
11. Bartels RHMA, Verbeek ALM. Risk factors for ulnar nerve compression at the elbow: a case control study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2007; 149(7):669. doi:10.1007/s00701-007-1166-5.
12. Omejec G, Žgur T, Podnar S. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonographic and nerve conduction studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Clin Neurophysiol Off J Int Fed Clin Neurophysiol. 2015; 126(9): 1797-1804. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2014.12.001.
13. Goldberg BJ, Light TR, Blair SJ. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: results of medial epicondylectomy. J Hand Surg. 1989; 14(2 Pt 1): 182-188. doi:10.1016/0363-5023(89)90003-8.
14. Padua L, Aprile I, Mazza O, et al. Neurophysiological classification of ulnar entrapment across the elbow. Neurol Sci. 2001; 22(1): 11-16. doi:10.1007/s100720170030.
15. Halac G, Topaloglu P, Demir S, et al. Ulnar nerve entrapment neuropathy at the elbow: relationship between the electrophysiological findings and neuropathic pain. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015; 27(7): 2213-2216. doi:10.1589/jpts.27.2213.
16. Zimmerman NB, Kaye MB, Wilgis EFS, Zimmerman RM, Dubin NH. Are standardized patient self-reporting instruments applicable to the evaluation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):463-468. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.010.