Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 87, Issue 3 , Pages 408-410, March 2006

Mixed Latency Difference for Diagnosis of Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow

Presented in part to the joint meeting of the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, September 16−20, 2003, San Francisco, CA.

Fleury Institute, Neurophysiology Section, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Abstract 

Heise CO, Toledo SM. Mixed latency difference for diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

Objective

To provide reference values and to compare this technique with the standard motor conduction velocity (MCV) of the ulnar nerve.

Design

Retrospective unmasked study.

Setting

Private and institutional practice.

Participants

The reference group included 57 healthy volunteers. Patients included 100 subjects with suspected ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) referred for neurophysiologic evaluation. This group was subdivided into 2 groups: group A was composed of 45 patients with UNE confirmed by MCV of the ulnar nerve, and group B included 55 patients with suspected UNE in whom the diagnosis could not be established by MCV of the ulnar nerve.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Differences between peak latencies of ulnar and median mixed nerve action potentials at the arm, after stimulating these nerves at the wrist. This was called mixed latency difference.

Results

The upper normative limit of the mixed latency difference was 1.1ms, and there was a significant correlation with height. In group A, the mixed latency difference was abnormal in 80% of the cases and could not be calculated in 18%. In group B, the mixed latency difference was abnormal in 8 (15%) patients. All of these had abnormal “inching” of the ulnar nerve across the elbow.

Conclusions

The mixed latency difference was particularly useful in cases of mild UNE.

Key Words:  Diagnosis , Elbow , Nerve conduction , Rehabilitation , Ulnar neuropathies

 

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(05)01384-5

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.006

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 87, Issue 3 , Pages 408-410, March 2006