Nerve Conduction Studies in Surgical Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Patients

Abstract

Background: Electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) serve a prominent role in the diagnostic workup of cubital tunnel syndrome (CBTS), but their reported sensitivity varies widely. The goals of our study were to determine the sensitivity of EDX in a cohort of patients who responded well to surgical cubital tunnel release (CBTR), and whether the implementation of the Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) criteria improves the sensitivity. Methods: We identified 118 elbows with clinical CBTS who had preoperative EDX and underwent CBTR. The EDX diagnoses were CBTS, ulnar neuropathy (UN), and normal ulnar nerves. We divided the 118 elbows into those that received above-elbow stimulation (XE group) and those that did not (non-XE group). We calculated the sensitivities for all groups and reinterpreted the results according to the AANEM guidelines. Results: Cubital tunnel release provided significant relief in 93.6% of the elbows. Based on the EDX reports, 11% patients had clear CBTS, 23% had UN, and 66% showed no UN. The sensitivities were 11.7% for CBTS and 34.2% for any UN. In the XE group, the sensitivity of the EDX reports for CBTS and UN climbed to 33.3% and 58.3%, respectively. When we calculated the across-elbow motor nerve conduction velocity, the sensitivity for CBTS and UN was 87.5% and 100%, respectively. The XE and non-XE groups showed no difference except for sex, bilaterality, concomitant carpal tunnel release, and obesity (P < .05). Conclusion: Implementing AANEM guidelines results in significant improvement in correlation of clinical and electrodiagnostic findings of CBTS.

Keywords

cubital tunnel syndrome electrodiagnostic nerve conduction study sensitivity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Posner

. Compressive ulnar neuropathies at the elbow: I. Etiology and diagnosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6(5):282-288. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9753755. Accessed October 31, 2018.

Evanoff

Boyer

, et al. The prevalence of cubital tunnel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in a U.S. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(5):408-416. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01162.

Cutts

Cubital tunnel syndrome. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83(975):28-31. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2006.047456.

Spinner

Kaplan

EB.

The relationship of the ulnar nerve to the medial intermuscular septum in the arm and its clinical significance. Hand. 1976;8(3):239-242. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/976822. Accessed October 31, 2018.

Boone

Gelberman

Calfee

RP.

The management of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(9):1897-1904; quiz 1904. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.03.011.

Root

London

Schroeder

, et al. Anatomical relationships and branching patterns of the dorsal cutaneous branch of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(6):1131-1136. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.03.016.

Palmer

Hughes

TB.

Cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(1):153-163. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.11.004.

Mackinnon

SE.

Ulnar neuropathy: evaluation and management. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(2):178-184. doi:10.1007/s12178-016-9327-x.

Tapadia

Mozaffar

Gupta

Compressive neuropathies of the upper extremity: update on pathophysiology, classification, and electrodiagnostic findings. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(4):668-677. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.01.007.

10.

Feinberg

EMG: myths and facts. HSS J. 2006;2(1):19-21. doi:10.1007/s11420-005-0124-0.

11.

Practice parameters for electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. https://www.aanem.org/getmedia/acf78f99-7f9c-4414-8a4e-afeb96b7103d/UlnarNeur.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2019.

12.

AAEM Quality Assurance Committee. Literature review of the usefulness of nerve conduction studies and electromyography in the evaluation of patients with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. https://www.aanem.org/getmedia/acf78f99-7f9c-4414-8a4e-afeb96b7103d/UlnarNeur.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2019.

13.

Landau

Campbell

WW.

Clinical features and electrodiagnosis of ulnar neuropathies. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2013;24(1):49-66. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2012.08.019.

14.

Novak

Lee

Mackinnon

, et al. Provocative testing for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 1994;19(5):817-820. doi:10.1016/0363-5023(94)90193-7.

15.

Rayan

Jensen

Duke

Elbow flexion test in the normal population. J Hand Surg Am. 1992;17(1):86-89. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1538117. Accessed October 31, 2018.

16.

Beekman

Visser

LH.

Sonography in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: a critical review of the literature. Muscle Nerve. 2003;27(1):26-33. doi:10.1002/mus.10227.

17.

Kuschner

Ebramzadeh

Mitchell

Evaluation of elbow flexion and linel tests for cubital tunnel syndrome in asymptomatic individuals. Orthopedics. 2006;29(4):305-308. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16628989. Accessed October 31, 2018.

18.

Mallette

Zhao

Zurakowski

, et al. Muscle atrophy at diagnosis of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(6):855-858. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.03.009.

19.

Goldberg

Light

Blair

SJ.

Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: results of medial epicondylectomy. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(2, pt 1):182-188. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2703664. Accessed October 31, 2018.

20.

Bielawski

Hallett

Position of the elbow in determination of abnormal motor conduction of the ulnar nerve across the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 1989;12(10):803-809. doi:10.1002/mus.880121004.

21.

Shakir

Micklesen

Robinson

LR.

Which motor nerve conduction study is best in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 2004;29(4):585-590. doi:10.1002/mus.10513.

22.

Kothari

Preston

DC.

Comparison of the flexed and extended elbow positions in localizing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 1995;18(3):336-340. doi:10.1002/mus.880180312.

23.

Kincaid

Phillips

Daube

JR.

The evaluation of suspected ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Normal conduction study values. Arch Neurol. 1986;43(1):44-47. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3942514. Accessed March 16, 2019.