Advertisement

Wrist – Digit IV

Surface Recording Technique, Antidromic Study
  • Giuliano Gentili
  • Mario Di Napoli
Chapter

Original Settings

Sensitivity was 20 μV/division, sweep speed was 1 ms/division, duration of pulse was 0.05 ms, and the machines used were a TECA TE-4 (34 subjects), a TECA model M (1 subject), and neurodiagnostic (2 subjects). Low-frequency filter, high-frequency filter, and rate of pulse were not specified.

Position

This study was performed in the supine position.

Recording

Following the antidromic method [ 1], signals were recorded using ring electrodes, 14 cm distally from the wrist to digit IV (Fig. 1). The active electrode (A) was placed at the base of digit IV. The reference (R) was placed on the junction between the middle phalanx and the distal phalanx, 4 cm distal to the active electrode. Ground (G) was placed on the palm of the hand. Median (R1) and ulnar (R2) nerve recordings were made separately.

Keywords

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Ulnar Nerve Nerve Conduction Study Diabetic Polyneuropathy Distal Motor Latency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson EW, Kukla RD, Wongsam PE et al (1981) Sensory latencies to the ring finger: normal values and relation to carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 62:206–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jackson DA, Clifford JC (1989) Electrodiagnosis of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 70:199–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles N, Vial C, Chauplannaz G et al (1990) Clinical validation of antidromic stimulation of the ring finger in early electrodiagnosis of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 76:142–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sheu JJ, Yuan RY, Chiou HY et al (2006) Segmental study of the median nerve versus comparative tests in the diagnosis of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1249–1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Imada M, Misawa S, Sawai S et al (2007) Median-radial sensory nerve comparative studies in the detection of median neuropathy at the wrist in diabetic patients. Clin Neurophysiol 118:1405–1409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aygül R, Ulvi H, Kotan D et al (2009) Sensitivities of conventional and new electrophysiological techniques in carpal tunnel syndrome and their relationship to body mass index. J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj 4:12PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gazioglu S, Boz C, Altunayoglu Cakmak A (2011) Electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Clin Neurophysiol 122:1463–1469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uzar E, Tamam Y, Acar A et al (2011) Sensitivity and specificity of terminal latency index and residual latency in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 15:1078–1084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bland JDP (2000) A neurophysiological grading scale for carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 23:1280–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuliano Gentili
    • 1
  • Mario Di Napoli
    • 1
  1. 1.Neurological ServiceS. Camillo de’ Lellis General HospitalRietiItaly

Personalised recommendations