Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Assessment of Historical and Objective Findings: A New Clinical Severity Scale of CTS

  • Chapter
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Abstract

The quantification of impairment is a fundamental phase in the approach to any disease. I can be considered a step of the diagnostic procedure providing better classification of severity, enabling compassion of patient groups, and supplying baseline assessment for follow-up studies and for the outcome evalution after different therapies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AAN, AAEM, AAPMR (1993) Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome: summary statement. Muscle Nerve 16:1390–1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AAN, AAEM, AAPMR (2002) Practice parameter: Electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 25:918–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Padua L, LoMonaco M, Gregori B, Valente EM, Padua R, Tonali P (1997) Neurophysiological classification and sensitivity in 500 carpal tunnel syndrome hands. Acta Neurol Scand 96:211–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bland JDP (2000) A neurophysiological grading scale for carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 23:1280–1283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R et al. (1999) Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. JAMA 282:153–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nathan PA, Takigawa K, Keniston RC et al. (1994) Slowing of sensory conduction of the median nerve and carpal tunnel syndrome in Japanese and American industrial workers. J Hand Surg [Br] 19:30–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rempel D, Evanoff B, Amadio PC et al. (1998) Consensus criteria for the classification of carpal tunnel syndrome in epidemiologic studies. Am J Public Health 88:1447–1451

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Moberg E (1958) Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. J Bone Joint Surg 40:454–476

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marlowe ES, Francis JB, Berkowitz AR (1999) Correlation between two-point discrimination and median nerve sensory response. Muscle Nerve 22:1196–1200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Arcy CA, McGee S (2000) Does this patient have carpal tunnel syndrome? JAMA 283:3110–3117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Katz JN, Gelberman RH, Wright EA et al. (1994) Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care 32:1127–1133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dellon AL (1980) Clinical use of vibratory stimuli to evaluate peripheral nerve injury and compression neuropathy. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:466–476

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Marx RG, Hudak PL, Bombardier C et al. (1998) The reliability of physical examination for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Br] 23:499–502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Szabo RM, Slater RR, Farver TB et al. (1999) The value of diagnostic testing in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am] 24:704–714

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Buch-Jaeger N, Foucher G (1994) Correlation of clinical signs with nerve conduction tests in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Br] 19:720–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pagel KJ, Kaul MP, Dryden JD (2002) Lack of utility of Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing in suspected carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81:597–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Krom MCTF, Knipschild PG, Kester ADM, Spaans F (1990). Efficacy of provocative tests for diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Lancet 335:393–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Werner RA, Bir C, Armstrong TJ (1994) Reverse Phalen’s maneuver as an aid in diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:783–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. LaBan MM, Friedman NA, Zemenick GA (1986) “Tethered” median nerve stress test in chronic carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 67:803–804

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mondelli M, Passero S, Giannini F (2001) Provocative tests in different stages of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 103:178–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jabre JF, Dillard JW, Salzsieder BT et al. (1995) The use of multiple Tinel’s sign in identification of patients with peripheral neuropathy. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 35:131–136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gellman H, Gelberman RH, Mae Tan A, Botte MJ (1986) Carpal tunnel syndrome. An evaluation of the provocative diagnostic tests. J Bone Joint Surg 68:735–737

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Katz JN, Larson MG, Sabra A et al. (1990) The carpal tunnel syndrome: diagnostic utility of the history and physical examination findings. Ann Int Med 112:321–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Katz JN and Stirrat CR (1990) A self-administered hand diagramfor the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. JHand Surg 15A:360–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bessette L, Keller RB, Lew RA et al. (1997) Prognostic value of a hand symptom diagram in surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Rheumatol 24:726–734

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP (1986) Measuring health status. Croon Helm, Beckenham

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B (1993) SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. New England Medical Center, Health Institute, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, and the Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Vaile JH, Mathers DM, Ramos-Remus C, Russel A (1999) Generic health instruments do not comprehensively capture patient perceived improvement in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Rheumatol 26:1163–1166

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C (2003) The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 4:11, http://www.biomedical.com/1471-2474/4/11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gay RE, Amadio PC, Johnson JC (2003) Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg [Am] 28:250–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Levine DW, Simmons B, Koris MJ et al. (1993) A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg 75A:1585–1592

    Google Scholar 

  33. Herskovitz S, Berger AR, Lipton RB (1995) Low-dose, short-term oral prednisone in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Neurology 45:1923–1925

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. You H, Simmons Z, Freivaldos A et al. (1999) Relationship between clinical symptom severity scales and nerve conduction measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 22:497–501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bland JDP (2000) The value of the history in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Br] 25:445–450

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Giannini F, Cioni R, Mondelli M et al. (2002) A new clinical scale of carpal tunnel syndrome: validation of the measurement and clinical-neurophysiological assessment. Clin Neurophysiol 113: 71–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Giannini F, Passero S, Cioni R et al. (1991) Electrophysiologic evaluation of local steroid injection in carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72:738–742

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Padua L, Padua R, LoMonaco M et al. (1999) Multiperspective assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a multicenter study. Italian CTS Study Group. Neurology 53:1654–1659

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Padua L, Padua R, Aprile I, Tonali P (1999) Italian multicentre study of carpal tunnel syndrome. Differences in the clinical and neurophysiological features between male and female patients. J Hand Surg [Br] 24:579–582

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Padua L, Padua R, Aprile I et al. Italian CTS Study Group (2001) Multiperspective follow-up of untreated carpal tunnel syndrome: a multicenter study. Neurology 56:1459–1466

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Padua L, Aprile I, Caliandro P et al. Italian Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Study Group (2002) Carpal tunnel syndrome in pregnancy: multiperspective follow-up of untreated cases. 59:1643–1646

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sunderland S (1991) Nerve injuries and their repair. A critical neurology appraisal. Churchill Livingstone, London

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mondelli M, Ginanneschi F, Rossi S et al. (2002) Inter-observer reproducibility and responsiveness of a clinical severity scale in surgically treated carpal tunnel syndrome. Acta Neurol Scand 106:263–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Mondelli M, Reale F, Sicurelli F, Padua L (2000) Relationship between the self-administered Boston Questionnaire and electrophysiological findings in follow-up of surgically-treated carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Br] 25:128–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Padua L, LoMonaco M, Padua R et al. (1995) Carpal tunnel syndrome: neurophysiological results of surgery based on preoperative electrodiagnostic testing. J Hand Surg [Br] 22:599–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reale F, Ginanneschi F, Sicurelli F, Mondelli M (2003) Protocol of outcome evaluation for surgical release of carpal tunnel syndrome. Neurosurgery 53:343–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto di Clinica delle Malattie Nervose e Mentali Policlinico „Le Scotte“, Viale Bracci, 53100, Siena, Italy

    F. Giannini M.D.

Authors
  1. F. Giannini M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Via Pietro da Rimini 4, 47900, Rimini, Italy

    Riccardo Luchetti M.D.

  2. Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, USA

    Peter Amadio M.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Giannini, F. (2007). Quantitative Assessment of Historical and Objective Findings: A New Clinical Severity Scale of CTS. In: Luchetti, R., Amadio, P. (eds) Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49008-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49008-1_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22387-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49008-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation