Is Ultrasonography a Reliable Approach for the Evaluation of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in Patients With Mucopolysaccharidosis?


Koç Yekedüz M., KÖSE E., İNCİ A., Yüksel M. F., DOĞULU N., Şen Akova B., ...More

Pediatric Neurology, vol.155, pp.171-176, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 155
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2024.03.032
  • Journal Name: Pediatric Neurology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Page Numbers: pp.171-176
  • Keywords: Carpal tunnel syndrome, Mucopolysaccharidosis, Nerve conduction study, Ultrasonography
  • Ankara University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Background: One of the most common causes of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in childhood is mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS). While ultrasonography (US) can aid in the diagnosis of CTS in adult patients, there is limited experience of this in the pediatric group. We aimed to investigate the results of wrist ultrasonography, which may be a candidate alternative to electrophysiological examination. Methods: The participants were evaluated for symptoms, physical examination findings, electrophysiological tests and grayscale US. CTS was diagnosed in accordance with the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. Results: Included in the study were 27 MPS patients aged 4.5–32 years and 30 healthy control subjects aged 4.3–26 years. Of the 54 wrists in the MPS group, 30 were diagnosed with CTS. The median cross-sectional area (CSA) at the proximal carpal tunnel, the CSA at the forearm, and the wrist-forearm ratio (WFR) were higher in the wrists of the MPS with CTS group than in those without CTS and the healthy control subjects. The WFR cutoff of ≥1.35, 56.6% (95% CI: 437.4–74.5) sensitivity, and 89.8% (95% CI: 81.0–95.5) specificity were consistent with a diagnosis of CTS (receiver operating characteristics analysis, area under the curve = 0.775, 95% CI: 0.673–0.877). Conclusion: Although the US provides results with unsatisfactory specificity and sensitivity, it is a candidate for further investigation for the diagnosis of CTS because it is an innovative, noninvasive, and more accessible method. WFR value may produce more meaningful results than wrist or forearm nerve area measurements.