Evaluation of Clinical Tests in Detecting Nerve Regeneration

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Bone and Joint Disease Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Bone and Joint Disease Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Background: There is not a perfect clinical nerve regeneration assessment test. Tinel’s test is an acknowledged test for clinical evaluation of nerve regeneration, but has significant imperfections. Therefore, there is great incentive to develop perfect clinical tests. Scratch collapse test and tender muscle sign have been described recently as valuable nerve entrapment provocative tests. In this study, scratch collapse test and tender muscle sign were used for evaluation of nerve regeneration and compared to Tinel’s test and electrodiagnostic study.Methods: Scratch collapse test and tender muscle sign were prospectively compared to Tinel’s test and electrodiagnostic study every 3 months post operation in 20 patients underwent nerve repair. Positive and negative frequency, sensitivity, specificity and coefficient agreement of each test were calculated.Findings: Sensitivity of Tinel’s test, tender muscle sign, scratch collapse test, and electrodiagnostic study was 70%, 60%, 50%, and 80%, respectively. Specificity of Tinel’s test, tender muscle sign, scratch collapse test, and electrodiagnostic study was 80%, 90%, 60%, and 80%, respectively. The highest positive and negative predictive values were related to tender muscle sign and Tinel’s test, respectively. The scratch collapse test had the lowest positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity.Conclusion: Tinel’s test and tender muscle sign had the most sensitivity and specificity, respectively; routine application of these two tests is recommended for evaluation of nerve regeneration. But, scratch collapse test has not required sensitivity and specificity to be used routinely for evaluation of nerve regeneration process.

Keywords

References

  1. Davis EN, Chung KC. The Tinel sign: a historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114(2): 494-9.
  2. Alfonso MI, Dzwierzynski W. Hoffman-Tinel sign. The realities. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 1998; 9(4): 721-36, v.
  3. Datema M, Hoitsma E, Roon KI, Malessy MJ, Van Dijk JG, Tannemaat MR. The Tinel sign has no diagnostic value for nerve entrapment or neuropathy in the legs. Muscle Nerve 2016; 54(1): 25-30.
  4. Jeong DH, Kim CH. The quantitative relationship between physical examinations and the nerve conduction of the carpal tunnel syndrome in patients with and without a diabetic polyneuropathy. Ann Rehabil Med 2014; 38(1): 57-63.
  5. Lee EY, Karjalainen TV, Sebastin SJ, Lim AY. The value of the tender muscle sign in detecting motor recovery after peripheral nerve reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40(3): 433-7.
  6. Cheng CJ, Mackinnon-Patterson B, Beck JL, Mackinnon SE. Scratch collapse test for evaluation of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2008; 33(9): 1518-24.
  7. Brown JM, Mokhtee D, Evangelista MS, Mackinnon SE. Scratch collapse test localizes osborne's band as the point of maximal nerve compression in cubital tunnel syndrome. Hand (NY) 2010; 5(2): 141-7.
  8. Gillenwater J, Cheng J, Mackinnon SE. Evaluation of the scratch collapse test in peroneal nerve compression. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128(4): 933-9.
  9. Turana I, Hagertb E, Jakobsson J. the scratch collapse test supported the diagnosis and showed successful treatment of tarsal tunnel syndrome. J Med Case 2013; 4(11): 746-7.
  10. Davidge KM, Gontre G, Tang D, Boyd KU, Yee A, Damiano MS, et al. The "hierarchical" Scratch Collapse Test for identifying multilevel ulnar nerve compression. Hand (NY) 2015; 10(3): 388-95.
  11. Blok RD, Becker SJ, Ring DC. Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: interobserver reliability of the blinded scratch-collapse test. J Hand Microsurg 2014; 6(1): 5-7.
  12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159-74.
  13. Spicher C, Kohut G, Miauton J. At which stage of sensory recovery can a tingling sign be expected? a review and proposal for standardization and grading. J Hand Ther 1999; 12(4): 298-308.
  14. Lifchez SD, Means KR, Jr., Dunn RE, Williams EH, Dellon AL. Intra- and inter-examiner variability in performing Tinel's test. J Hand Surg Am 2010; 35(2): 212-6.
  15. Kato N, Birch R. Peripheral nerve palsies associated with closed fractures and dislocations. Injury 2006; 37(6): 507-12.
  16. Birch R. Brachial plexus injury: the London experience with supraclavicular traction lesions. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2009; 20(1): 15-23, v.
  17. Makanji HS, Becker SJ, Mudgal CS, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Evaluation of the scratch collapse test for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2014; 39(2): 181-6.
  18. Bird EV, Long A, Boissonade FM, Fried K, Robinson PP. Neuropeptide expression following constriction or section of the inferior alveolar nerve in the ferret. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2002; 7(3): 168-80.
  19. Klimaschewski L. Increased innervation of rat preganglionic sympathetic neurons by substance P containing nerve fibers in response to spinal cord injury. Neurosci Lett 2001; 307(2): 73-6.
  20. Abbadie C, Brown JL, Mantyh PW, Basbaum AI. Spinal cord substance P receptor immunoreactivity increases in both inflammatory and nerve injury models of persistent pain. Neuroscience 1996; 70(1): 201-9.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 35, Issue 425 - Serial Number 425
March and April 2017
Pages 376-380

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 November 2016
  • Revise Date: 28 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics