Cargando…

The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The median nerve cross-sectional area (MNCSA) is a useful morphological parameter for the evaluation of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, there have been limited studies investigating the anatomical basis of median nerve flattening. Thus, to evaluate the connection between median ne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Sooho, Cho, Hyung Rae, Yoo, Jun Sung, Kim, Young Uk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Pain Society 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6944367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31888318
http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2020.33.1.54
_version_ 1783485025943027712
author Lee, Sooho
Cho, Hyung Rae
Yoo, Jun Sung
Kim, Young Uk
author_facet Lee, Sooho
Cho, Hyung Rae
Yoo, Jun Sung
Kim, Young Uk
author_sort Lee, Sooho
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The median nerve cross-sectional area (MNCSA) is a useful morphological parameter for the evaluation of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, there have been limited studies investigating the anatomical basis of median nerve flattening. Thus, to evaluate the connection between median nerve flattening and CTS, we carried out a measurement of the median nerve thickness (MNT). METHODS: Both MNCSA and MNT measurement tools were collected from 20 patients with CTS, and from 20 control individuals who underwent carpal tunnel magnetic resonance imaging (CTMRI). We measured the MNCSA and MNT at the level of the hook of hamate on CTMRI. The MNCSA was measured on the transverse angled sections through the whole area. The MNT was measured based on the most compressed MNT. RESULTS: The mean MNCSA was 9.01 ± 1.94 mm(2) in the control group and 6.58 ± 1.75 mm(2) in the CTS group. The mean MNT was 2.18 ± 0.39 mm in the control group and 1.43 ± 0.28 mm in the CTS group. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis demonstrated that the optimal cut-off value for the MNCSA was 7.72 mm(2), with 75.0% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.95). The best cut off-threshold of the MNT was 1.76 mm, with 85% sensitivity, 85% specificity, and an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87–1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Even though both MNCSA and MNT were significantly associated with CTS, MNT was identified as a more suitable measurement parameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6944367
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher The Korean Pain Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69443672020-01-09 The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study Lee, Sooho Cho, Hyung Rae Yoo, Jun Sung Kim, Young Uk Korean J Pain Original Article BACKGROUND: The median nerve cross-sectional area (MNCSA) is a useful morphological parameter for the evaluation of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, there have been limited studies investigating the anatomical basis of median nerve flattening. Thus, to evaluate the connection between median nerve flattening and CTS, we carried out a measurement of the median nerve thickness (MNT). METHODS: Both MNCSA and MNT measurement tools were collected from 20 patients with CTS, and from 20 control individuals who underwent carpal tunnel magnetic resonance imaging (CTMRI). We measured the MNCSA and MNT at the level of the hook of hamate on CTMRI. The MNCSA was measured on the transverse angled sections through the whole area. The MNT was measured based on the most compressed MNT. RESULTS: The mean MNCSA was 9.01 ± 1.94 mm(2) in the control group and 6.58 ± 1.75 mm(2) in the CTS group. The mean MNT was 2.18 ± 0.39 mm in the control group and 1.43 ± 0.28 mm in the CTS group. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis demonstrated that the optimal cut-off value for the MNCSA was 7.72 mm(2), with 75.0% sensitivity, 75.0% specificity, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.95). The best cut off-threshold of the MNT was 1.76 mm, with 85% sensitivity, 85% specificity, and an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87–1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Even though both MNCSA and MNT were significantly associated with CTS, MNT was identified as a more suitable measurement parameter. The Korean Pain Society 2020-01 2020-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6944367/ /pubmed/31888318 http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2020.33.1.54 Text en © The Korean Pain Society, 2020 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Sooho
Cho, Hyung Rae
Yoo, Jun Sung
Kim, Young Uk
The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
title The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
title_full The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
title_fullStr The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
title_full_unstemmed The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
title_short The prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
title_sort prognostic value of median nerve thickness in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome using magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6944367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31888318
http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2020.33.1.54
work_keys_str_mv AT leesooho theprognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT chohyungrae theprognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT yoojunsung theprognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT kimyounguk theprognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT leesooho prognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT chohyungrae prognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT yoojunsung prognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy
AT kimyounguk prognosticvalueofmediannervethicknessindiagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndromeusingmagneticresonanceimagingapilotstudy