Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vibration sensitivity testing with tuning fork—256 Hz or 512 Hz?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Outcome measures of vibratory sensitivity using a 256-Hz tuning fork depend on the perception of vibration by the patient and qualitative comparison with sensory threshold on the examiner. The authors present their experience of comparison of vibratory sensation using a 512-Hz tuning fork with the conventional 256-Hz counterpart in normal volunteers. The median visual analogue score achieved by the 512-Hz tuning fork was the same as the 256-Hz one in all the tested areas of the hand. The 512-Hz tuning fork is smaller and easier to carry and is more advantageous compared to the 256-Hz one. The authors strongly recommend the use of the 512-Hz tuning fork for the vibration sensitivity test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burns TM, Taly A, O’Brian PC (2002) Clinical versus quantitative vibration assessment: improving clinical performance. J Peripher Nerv Syst 7(2):112–117, Jun

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hubbard MC, MacDermid JC, Kramer JF (2004) Quantitative vibration threshold testing in carpal tunnel syndrome: analysis strategies for optimizing reliability. J Hand Ther 17(1):24–30, Jan–Mar

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman C, Okun MS (2002) Origin of the sensory examination in neurology. Semin Neurol 22(4):399–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosecrance JC, Cook TM, Satre DL, Goode JD (1994) Vibration sensibility testing in the workplace. Day-to-day reliability. J Occup Med 36(9):1032–1037, Sep

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Thivolet C, El-Farkh J, Petiot A, Simonet C (1990) Measuring Vibration Sensations with graduated tuning fork. Diabetes Care 13(10):1077–1080

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pestronk A, Florence J, Levine T (2004) Sensory exam with a quantitative tuning fork. Neurology 1:461–464, Feb

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guyton AC, Hall J (2000) The nervous system: general principles and sensory physiology (unit 9). In: Guyton AC, Hall J (eds) Textbook of medical physiology (9th edn). Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 594–599

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Countess of Chester Hospital, Liverpool Road, Chester, Cheshire, CH2 1UL, UK

    A. Juma & A. Mandal

Authors
  1. A. Juma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Mandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Mandal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Juma, A., Mandal, A. Vibration sensitivity testing with tuning fork—256 Hz or 512 Hz?. Eur J Plast Surg 30, 5–6 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-007-0125-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-007-0125-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation