Ultrasound Ulnar Nerve Measurement in a Healthy Population

12Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Ulnar tunnel syndrome at the elbow is a common pathology. The ultrasound cross-sectional area is a well-known metric widely accepted in radiology for the description of nerve entrapment. However, the pathological cut-off value remains challenging. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the ultrasound cross-sectional area measurement of the ulnar nerve at three locations, and (2) to evaluate the inter-observer reliability by two independent ultrasonographers. Methods: One-hundred ulnar nerves of 50 asymptomatic individuals were scanned using B-mode and power Doppler ultrasonography. The ultrasound cross-sectional area measurements of the ulnar nerve were performed at three different levels: 2 cm proximal to the epicondyle, at the level of the epicondyle, and 2 cm distal to the epicondyle. Results: In our healthy population, we found 21, 24 and 7% of ultrasound cross-sectional area ulnar nerve > 8 mm2, respectively, at three different levels of measurement and 4, 7, and 0% US-CSA ulnar nerve > 10 mm2. The intraclass correlation coefficient measured at three different site levels were good (0.7943, 0.7509) to moderate (0.5701). Conclusions: Almost one-quarter of our healthy population had an ultrasound cross-sectional area ulnar nerve more than 8 mm2 and few more than 10 mm2. A cut-off of ultrasound cross-sectional area ulnar nerve measurement more than 10 mm2 could be considered as pathological. No abnormal elbow ulnar nerve vascularization has been seen. This is the first step towards normal B-mode ulnar nerve values at the elbow to further detect pathological US findings as ulnar nerve entrapment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Letissier, H., Dardenne, G., Saraux, A., Le Nen, D., Borotikar, B., & Jousse-Joulin, S. (2021). Ultrasound Ulnar Nerve Measurement in a Healthy Population. Rheumatology and Therapy, 8(1), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-021-00283-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free