These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Neuronal conduction studies of the median nerve in non-impaired humans: a comparison of accepted techniques.
    Author: Nelson RM, Kaur H, Muniz E, Gasiewska E, Lugo J, Agro J, Nelson AJ, Rothman J.
    Journal: Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol; 2004; 44(5):281-7. PubMed ID: 15378867.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are two commonly accepted techniques used for distal electro-stimulation placement when performing median motor nerve conduction studies. The purpose of this study was to compare latency using two commonly accepted sites of distal stimulation of the median nerve when performing motor nerve conduction studies on non-impaired adult humans. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 36 non-impaired participants (15 female, 21 male) aged 20 to 40 years. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to two groups and tested bilaterally for the median motor nerve. For distal stimulation of the median motor nerve, in the first group, 8 cm was measured from the center of the muscle diagonally to arrive at a point between the flexor carpi radialis and plamaris longus tendons. In the second group, 3.5 cm was measured from the distal wrist crease proximally along the median nerve for the distal stimulation of the median motor nerve. Distal latency of both techniques was obtained. Surface skin temperature of the palm was recorded throughout the procedures. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the 8 cm and 3.5 cm techniques at p < or = 0. 05 level. COMMENT: Even though no differences were found between the two techniques, the 3.5-cm technique is recommended because of its consistency as an anatomical landmark reducing the potential for measurement error.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]