Abstract
Background:
Nerve conduction studies (NCS) and ultrasound (US) remain imperfect compared with clinical diagnosis and/or diagnostic tools such as carpal tunnel syndrome-6 (CTS-6) for diagnosis of carpal tunne syndrome (CTS). One potential reason for the discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and testing is “borderline” case inclusion. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes after carpal tunnel release (CTR) between “borderline” and “clear” patients with CTS determined by NCS and US.
Methods:
This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent CTR. We collected NCS and US measurements of the median nerve cross-sectional area (MNCSA) at the carpal tunnel inlet, and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores comprised of the Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and the Functional Status Scale (FSS). Ultrasound measurements defined patients as having “borderline” (MNCSA < 13 mm2) or “clear” (MNCSA ≥ 13 mm2) CTS.
Results:
The study included 94 unilateral patients with CTS. “Borderline” CTS was diagnosed in 58 patients (62%), and “clear” CTS was diagnosed in 36 patients (38%). No significant differences in BCTQ scores were found between groups. At greater than 6-month follow-up, the mean FSS was 1.44 and 1.45 for clear and borderline groups, respectively (P = .97) and the mean SSS was 1.47 and 1.51, respectively (P = .84). However, a significant difference between groups when comparing distal motor latency (DML) and distal sensory latency (DSL) existed. The mean DSL was 3.71 and 4.44 for the clear and borderline groups, respectively (P = .02). The mean DML was 4.59 and 5.36 (P = .048).
Conclusion:
Categorizing CTS diagnosis into “borderline” and “clear” based on preoperative US and NCS testing did not correlate with BCTQ changes after CTR. It remains unclear whether the BCTQ is a valid postoperative assessment tool, despite its frequent use in literature.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.