|
|
|
|
March 2008 Volume 108, Number 3
|
|
|
|
Magnetic resonance imaging compared with electrodiagnostic studies in patients with suspected carpal tunnel syndrome: predicting symptoms, function, and surgical benefit at 1 yearJeffrey G. Jarvik, M.D., M.P.H.1,2,3, Bryan A. Comstock, M.S.3, Patrick J. Heagerty, Ph.D.3,4, David R. Haynor, M.D., Ph.D.1,2, Deborah Fulton-Kehoe, M.P.H., Ph.D.5, Michel Kliot, M.D.2, and Gary M. Franklin, M.D., M.P.H.5,6,7 1Departments of Radiology, 2Neurological Surgery, 6Neurology, and 7Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine; 4Departments of Biostatistics and 5Environmental Health, School of Public Health; and 3Comparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Abbreviations used in this paper: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; CTS = carpal tunnel syndrome; CTSAQ = Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Assessment Questionnaire; EDS = electrodiagnostic study; FOV = field of view; MR = magnetic resonance; SD = standard deviation; STIR = shorttau inversion recovery. Address correspondence to: Jeffrey G. Jarvik, M.D., M.P.H., Department of Radiology, Box 357115, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific, Seattle, Washington 98195. email: jarvikj@u.washington.edu. DOI: 10.3171/JNS/2008/108/3/0541 Object The goal in this study of patients with clinical carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) was to compare the usefulness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of electrodiagnostic studies (EDSs) for the following purposes: 1) prediction of 1-year outcomes and 2) identification of patients who are likely to benefit from surgical treatment. Methods The authors prospectively enrolled 120 patients with clinically suspected CTS. The participants were tested using standardized EDSs, MR imaging, and a battery of questionnaires, including the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Assessment Questionnaire, a well-validated 5-point score of symptoms and function. The EDSs and MR images were each interpreted independently. Patients were reevaluated after 1 year. The decision to treat patients conservatively or by carpal tunnel release was made by the individual surgeon, who had access to the initial EDS but not MR imaging results. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine associations between 1-year outcomes and baseline diagnostic tests. Results The authors recontacted 105 of 120 participants at 12 months. Of these, 30 patients had had surgery and 75 had not. Patients who had undergone surgery showed greater improvement at 1 year than those who had not had surgery. The length of the abnormal T2-weighted nerve signal on MR imaging and median–ulnar sensory latency difference were the strongest predictors of surgical benefit. There was a clear patient preference for the MR imaging over EDSs. Conclusions The findings obtained with MR imaging of the carpal tunnel predict surgical benefit independently of nerve conduction studies. KEYWORDS:carpal tunnel syndrome; magnetic resonance imaging; outcome; peripheral nerve. Cited byGuido Stoll, Martin Bendszus, Jose Perez, Mirko Pham. (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of the peripheral nervous system. Journal of Neurology Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009. CrossRef N. Wiegand, L. Vámhidy, B. Patczai, E. Dömse, P. Than, L. Kereskai, D. Lőrinczy. (2009) Differential scanning calorimetric examination of transverse carpal ligament in carpal tunnel disease. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 95:3, 793-796 Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009. CrossRef
|
|
|