Reliability of Ulnar Nerve Sensation Tests in Patients with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome and Healthy Subjects
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Protocol
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Semmes–Weinstein Monofilament (SWM)
3.2. Static Two-Point Discrimination (2PD)
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bulut, T.; Akgun, U.; Ozcan, C.; Unver, B.; Sener, M. Inter- and intra-tester reliability of sensibility testing in digital nerve repair. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol. 2016, 41, 621–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolny, T.; Saulicz, E.; Gnat, R.; Kokosz, M. Butler’s neuromobilizations combined with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation are effective in reducing of Upper limb sensory in late-stage stroke subjects: A three-group randomized trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2010, 24, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolny, T.; Saulicz, E.; Linek, P.; Myśliwiec, A. Two-point discrimination and kinesthetic sense disorders in productive age individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Occup. Health 2016, 58, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolny, T.; Linek, P. Reliability of two-point discrimination test in carpal tunnel syndrome patients. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2019, 35, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bulut, T.; Tahta, M.; Sener, U.; Sener, M. Inter- and intra-tester reliability of sensibility testing in healthy individuals. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2018, 52, 189–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, P.G.; Jones, A.; Araujo, P.M.; Natour, J. Assessment of light touch sensation in the hands of systemic sclerosis patients. Clinics 2014, 69, 585–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yahya, A.; Klauding, P.; Pasnoor, M.; Wick, J.; Liu, W.; Dos Samtos, M. The impact of diabetic peripheral neuropathy on pinch proprioception. Exp. Brain Res. 2019, 237, 3165–3174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnabl, S.M.; Kisslinger, F.; Schramm, A.; Dragu, A.; Kneser, U.; Unglaub, F.; Horch, R.E. Objective outcome of partial medial epicondylectomy in cubital tunnel syndrome. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2010, 130, 1549–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.W.; Yin, C.Y.; Huang, H.K.; Chen, T.M.; Hsueh, K.K.; Yang, C.Y.; Huang, Y.C.; Chang, M.C.; Wang, J.P. Influential factors of surgical decompression for ulnar nerve neuropathy in Guyon’s canal. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2021, 84, 885–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Novak, C.B.; Mackinnon, S.E.; Kelly, L. Correlation of two-point discrimination and hand function following median nerve injury. Ann. Plast. Surg. 1993, 31, 495–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boesch, C.E.; Medved, F.; Held, M.; Bender, B.; Schaller, H.E.; Fuchsberger, T. Analysis of the two-point discrimination test in daily routine practice. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 2017, 40, 333–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, S.; Pearsall, G.; Ruderman, R.J. Von Frey’s method of measuring pressure sensibility in the hand: An engineering analysis of the Weinstein-Semmes pressure aesthesiometer. J. Hand Surg. Am. 1978, 3, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellon, A.L. The moving two-point discrimination test: Clinical evaluation of the quickly adapting fiber/receptor system. J. Hand. Surg. Am. 1978, 3, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grobnicu, O.; Vinée, F.; Igeta, Y.; Xavier, F.; Bourcier, T.; Liverneaux, P. Tactile sensitivity thresholds for the radial hemi-pulp of the index: A comparison between the Semmes-Weinstein and Cochet-Bonnet tests in 25 healthy subjects. Hand Surg. Rehabil. 2018, 37, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ellaway, P.H.; Catley, M. Reliability of the electrical perceptual threshold and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament tests of cutaneous sensibility. Spinal Cord 2013, 51, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolny, T.; Linek, P.; Michalski, P. Inter-rater reliability of two-point discrimination in acute stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation 2017, 41, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marx, R.G.; Hudak, P.L.; Bombardier, C.; Graham, B.; Goldsmith, C.; Wright, J.G. The reliability of physical examination for carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Hand Surg. Br. 1998, 23, 499–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krumlinde-Sundholm, L.; Eliasson, A.C. Comparing tests of tactile sensibility: Aspects relevant to testing children with spastic hemiplegia. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2002, 44, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meirte, J.; Moortgat, P.; Truijen, S.; Meartens, K.; Lafaire, C.; De Cuyper, L.; Hubens, G.; Van Daele, U. Interrater and intrarater reliability of the Semmes Weinstein aesthesiometer to assess touch pressure threshold in burn scars. Burns 2015, 41, 1261–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schreuders, T.A.; Selles, R.W.; van Ginneken, B.T.; Janssen, W.G.; Stam, H.J. Sensory evaluation of the hands in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. J. Hand Ther. 2008, 21, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suda, M.; Kawakami, M.; Okuyama, K.; Ishii, R.; Oshima, O.; Hijikata, N.; Nakamura, T.; Oka, A.; Kondo, K.; Liu, M. Validity and Reliability of the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test and the Thumb Localizing Test in Patients with Stroke. Front. Neurol. 2021, 11, 625917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rozental, T.D.; Beredjiklian, P.K.; Guyette, T.M.; Weiland, A.J. Intra- and interobserver reliability of sensibility testing in asymptomatic individuals. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2000, 44, 605–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- An, T.W.; Evanoff, B.A.; Boyer, M.I.; Osei, D.A. The Prevalence of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study in a U.S. Metropolitan Cohort. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2017, 99, 408–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oskay, D.; Meriç, A.; Nuray, K.; Firat, T.; Ayhan, C.; Leblebicioğlu, G. Neurodynamic mobilization in the conservative treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: Long-term follow-up of 7 cases. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2010, 33, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ozkan, F.U.; Saygi, E.K.; Senol, S.; Kapci, S.; Aydeniz, B.; Aktas, I.; Gozke, E. New treatment alternatives in the ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: Ultrasound and low-level laser therapy. Acta Neurol. Belg. 2015, 115, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cicchetti, D.V.; Sparrow, S.A. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 1981, 86, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Rankin, G.; Stokes, M. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: An illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin. Rehabil. 1998, 12, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellon, A.L.; Mackinnon, S.E.; Crosby, P.M. Reliability of two-point discrimination measurements. J. Hand Surg. Am. Vol. 1987, 12, 693–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Brakel, W.H.; Khawas, I.B.; Gurung, K.S.; Kets, C.M.; Van Leerdam, M.E.; Drever, W. Intra- and inter-tester reliability of sensibility testing in leprosy. Int. J. Lepr. Myconact. Dis. 1996, 64, 287–298. [Google Scholar]
- Moberg, E. Two-point discrimination test. A valuable part of hand surgical rehabilitation, eg in tetraplegia. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1990, 22, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Lundborg, G.; Rosén, B. The two-point discrimination test–time for a re-appraisal? J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol. 2004, 29, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sydner, B.A.; Munter, A.D.; Houston, M.N.; Hoch, J.M.; Hoch, M.C. Interrater and intrarater reliability of the semmes-weinstein monofilament 4-2-1 stepping algorithm. Muscle Nerve 2016, 53, 918–924. [Google Scholar]
Healthy Volunteers (n = 30) | CuTS Patients (n = 21) | |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | 40 (11.2) | 39.8 (9.2) |
Height (cm) | 174.8 (11.6) | 172.8 (10.8) |
Body mass (kg) | 78.3 (15.5) | 75.2 (14.3) |
Gender (numbers) | 10 (47.6%) Female | 10 (47.6%) Female |
Affected side | - | 18 (85.7%) Right |
NCS (MCV m/s) | - | 36.2 (6.13) |
Finger 4 | Finger 5 | Hypothenar | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
For Single Measurement | ||||
Rater A | Mean | 2.76 | 2.8 | 2.76 |
Rater B | Mean | 2.76 | 2.81 | 2.8 |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (within-day 15 min) | K 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.91 |
P0% 2 | 100 | 100 | 95.2 | |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (between-days 7 days) | K 1 | 0.92 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
P0% 2 | 95.2 | 100 | 100 | |
Inter-rater reliability (baseline assessment) | K 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.91 |
P0% 2 | 100 | 100 | 95.2 |
Side | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dominant (Right) | Non-Dominant (Left) | ||||||
Finger 4 | Finger 5 | Hypothenar | Finger 4 | Finger 5 | Hypothenar | ||
For Single Measurement | |||||||
Rater A | Mean | 1.43 | 1.46 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.53 | 1.96 |
Rater B | Mean | 1.5 | 1.47 | 1.8 | 1.63 | 1.56 | 1.93 |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (within-day 15 min) | K 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 0.90 |
P0% 2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 93.3 | |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (between-days 7 days) | K 1 | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.90 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 0.90 |
P0% 2 | 96.7 | 100 | 93.3 | 100 | 96.7 | 93.3 | |
Inter-rater reliability (baseline assessment) | K 1 | 0.87 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.95 |
P0% 2 | 93.3 | 100 | 100 | 96.7 | 90 | 96.7 |
Finger 4 | Finger 5 | Hypothenar | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Rater A | Mean 1 | 6.8 | 6.81 | 11.71 |
SD 1 | 1.12 | 1.16 | 1.61 | |
Rater B | Mean 1 | 6.81 | 6.8 | 11.76 |
SD 1 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 1.3 | |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (within-day 15 min) | For single measurement | |||
ICC3.1 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.89 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.53 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
For mean value from three measurements | ||||
ICC3.3 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.96 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.27 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.11 * | 0.05 | 0.03 | |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (between-days 7 days) | For single measurement | |||
ICC3.1 | 0.83 | 0.56 | 0.67 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.47 | 0.66 | 0.79 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.09 | |
For mean value from three measurements | ||||
ICC3.3 | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.81 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.53 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.03 | |
Inter-rater reliability (baseline assessment) | For single measurement | |||
ICC2.1 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.85 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.56 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 | |
For mean value from three measurements | ||||
ICC2.3 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.95 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.29 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.05 | 0.19 * | 0.09 |
Side | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dominant (Right) | Non-Dominant (Left) | ||||||
Finger 4 | Finger 5 | Hypothenar | Finger 4 | Finger 5 | Hypothenar | ||
Rater A | Mean 1 | 5.16 | 4.76 | 8.3 | 5.26 | 5.56 | 8.16 |
SD 1 | 1.14 | 1.1 | 2.08 | 1.28 | 1.35 | 1.96 | |
Rater B | Mean 1 | 5.23 | 4.96 | 8.5 | 5.63 | 5.23 | 8.17 |
SD 1 | 0.97 | 1.12 | 2.19 | 1.15 | 1.22 | 1.72 | |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (within-day 15 min) | For single measurement | ||||||
ICC3.1 | 0.83 | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.95 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.49 | 0.54 | 0.43 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.13 | 0.26 | −0.27 * | 0.01 | 0.40 * | 0.20 | |
For mean value from three measurements | |||||||
ICC3.3 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.98 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.29 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.27 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.10 | 0.12 | −0.19 * | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.07 | |
Intra-rater reliability Rater A (between-days 7 days) | For single measurement | ||||||
ICC3.1 | 0.61 | 0.82 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.95 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.66 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.62 | 0.44 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.01 | 0.17 | −0.43 * | 0.20 | 0.43 * | 0.03 | |
For mean value from three measurements | |||||||
ICC3.3 | 0.83 | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.98 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.38 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.27 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.07 | 0.06 | −0.25 * | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.03 | |
Inter-rater reliability (baseline assessment) | For single measurement | ||||||
ICC2.1 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.94 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.45 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.20 | −0.20 * | 0.07 | −0.37 * | 0.33 * | 0.01 | |
For mean value from three measurements | |||||||
ICC2.3 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.96 | |
SEM (mm) | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.37 | |
Bias 2 (mm) | 0.01 | −0.13 * | 0.13 | −0.23 * | 0.01 | 0.09 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wolny, T.; Fernández-de-las Peñas, C.; Granek, A.; Linek, P. Reliability of Ulnar Nerve Sensation Tests in Patients with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome and Healthy Subjects. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102347
Wolny T, Fernández-de-las Peñas C, Granek A, Linek P. Reliability of Ulnar Nerve Sensation Tests in Patients with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome and Healthy Subjects. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(10):2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102347
Chicago/Turabian StyleWolny, Tomasz, César Fernández-de-las Peñas, Arkadiusz Granek, and Paweł Linek. 2022. "Reliability of Ulnar Nerve Sensation Tests in Patients with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome and Healthy Subjects" Diagnostics 12, no. 10: 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102347
APA StyleWolny, T., Fernández-de-las Peñas, C., Granek, A., & Linek, P. (2022). Reliability of Ulnar Nerve Sensation Tests in Patients with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome and Healthy Subjects. Diagnostics, 12(10), 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12102347