THE CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

Clicks: 1
ID: 305575
1979
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #342 of 375 articles by views in Brain research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 375 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Palmar stimulation was used to assess median nerve conduction across the carpal tunnel in 61 control patients and 105 patients with the carpal tunnel syndrome. With serial stimulation from midpalm to distal forearm the sensory axons normally showed a predictable latency change of 0.16 to 0.21 ms/cm as the stimulus site was moved proximally in 1 cm increments. In 47 (52 per cent) of 91 affected nerves tested serially, there was a sharply localized latency increase across a 1 cm segment, most commonly 2 to 4 cm distally to the origin of the transverse carpal ligament. In these hands, the focal latency change across the affected 1 cm segment (mean +/- SD: 0.80 +/- 0.22 ms/cm) averaged more than four times that of the adjoining distal (0.19 +/- 0.09 ms/cm) or proximal 1 cm segments (0.19 +/- 0.08 ms/cm). In the remaining 44 (48 per cent) hands, the latency increase was distributed more evenly across the carpal tunnel. Unlike the sensory axons the motor axons were difficult to test serially because of the recurrent course of the thenar nerve, which may be contained in a separate tunnel. The wrist-to-palm latency was significantly greater in the patients with carpal tunnel syndromes than in the controls for sensory (2.18 +/- 0.48 ms v 1.41 +/- 0.18 ms) and motor axons (2.79 +/- 0.93 ms v 1.50 +/- 0.21 ms). Consequently, there was considerable difference between the carpal tunnel syndromes and controls in SNCV (38.5 +/- 7.5 m/s v 57.3 +/- 6.9 m/s), and MNCV (28.2 +/- 4.5 m/s v 49.0 +/- 5.7 m/s). In the remaining distal segment, however, there was only a small difference between the two groups in sensory (1.48 +/- 0.28 ms v 1.41 +/- 0.22 ms) and motor latency (2.15 +/- 0.34 ms v 2.10 +/- 0.31 ms). The exclusion of the relatively normal distal latency made it possible to demonstrate mild slowing across the carpal tunnel in 36 (21 per cent) sensory and 40 (23 per cent) motor axons of 172 affected nerves when the conventional terminal latencies were normal. Sensory or motor conduction abnormalities were found in all but 13 (8 per cent) hands. Without palmar stimulation, however, an additional 32 (19 per cent) hands would have been regarded as normal.
Reference Key
openalex_W2014712452 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jun Kimura
Journal Brain research
Year 1979
DOI
10.1093/brain/102.3.619
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/102.3.619
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.