MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1007/bf00920573

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of neurology · 1994

The value of magnetic resonance imaging in carpal tunnel syndrome.

Seyfert S, Boegner F, Hamm B, Kleindienst A, Klatt C

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

We examined 62 patients (72 hands) with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the carpal tunnel and latency measurements of the median nerve. In 32 of 72 hands a probable causative lesion of the CTS was identified by MRI, for example tenosynovitis, a cyst-like structure, or an aberrant muscle. The MRI findings were confirmed by surgery in 16 of 24 hands, slightly corrected in 5, and not substantiated in 3. In 65 of 72 hands, MRI disclosed pathology of the median nerve, most prominently an enlargement of the nerve at the level of the os pisiforme, a finding not seen during surgery. Oedema of the nerve was found in 14 of 72 hands. The distal latencies were prolonged in 62 of 72 hands. The sensory latencies correlated significantly with the MRI-determined cross-sectional area of the nerve at the level of the distal radius. The lack of other correlations suggests that partly independent features of the nerve lesion are demonstrated in each method or that the sensitivity and specificity of both methods are limited. Further experience with MRI in CTS is desirable. At present, the practical use of MRI in CTS should be restricted to special diagnostic problems such as carpal tunnel syndromes which do not respond adequately to conservative or surgical treatment.

Для цитирования: Seyfert S, Boegner F, Hamm B, Kleindienst A, Klatt C. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in carpal tunnel syndrome.. Journal of neurology. 1994. DOI: 10.1007/bf00920573.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.