The authors were tasked to discuss the value of nerve conduction studies (NCS) in CTS. In discussing issues, the authors assume that “best-practice” is followed in the choice of test and how to perform them, and refer readers to the AANEM Guidelines (see Sonoo’s commentary, and Anon, 1993a, Jablecki et al., 1993, Jablecki et al., 2002). The opinions expressed below are not designed to constitute yet-another set of “Guidelines”. It is not a systematic review of the field and, while the authors agree on the general principles and conclusions, this is not a consensus document. This document presents the views of the authors, based on individual experience and literature. Triggered by the comprehensive systematic review performed by the American Orthopedic Association ( AAOS, 2016), and in the light of the Editorial by Fowler (2017), the Editors and Editorial Board commissioned Commentaries on these issues. Views differ between different craft groups, and it is relevant for the readers of this journal that a recent Editorial asserted that, in carpal tunnel syndrome, nerve conduction studies may be an “unnecessary evil” ( Fowler, 2017). There are many misconceptions about the condition, its underlying pathophysiology, patient demographics and optimal treatment. Carpal tunnel syndrome is perhaps the commonest cause of referral for neurophysiological testing, herein referred to as electrodiagnostic testing or EDX.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |