Karpal tünel sendromu içinhangi puanlama yöntemini kullanalım?

Year 2015, , 23 - 29, 19.03.2015

Hulya Yucel Hakan Seyithanoglu

https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2015.13.0162

Abstract

Amaç: Anketler hastanın el fonksiyonellliği algısını ortaya koymak için gereklidir. Bu çalışma, karpal tünel sendromu olan hastaların fonksiyonellliğini ortaya koymada ele özel anketlerden en etkin olanını belirlemek amacı ile planlandı.

Çalışma planı: Bu çalışmaya, geçen üç yıl içerisinde açık karpal tünel gevşetme ameliyatı olmuş toplam 89 hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların ağrı ve parestezi semptomlarının şiddetini değerlendirmek için Görsel Analog Skalası kullanıldı. Her bir katılımcıdan Boston Karpal Tünel Anketi, Michigan El Sonuç An¬keti, Kol, Omuz ve El Sorunları Anketi’nin kısa formu ve Duruöz El İndeksini doldurmaları istendi. Boston Karpal Tünel Anketi, ağrı ve parestezi sonuçları altın standart olarak kabul edildi. Michigan El Sonuç Anketi, Kol, Omuz ve El Sorunları Anketi’nin kısa formu ve Duruöz El İndeksi arasındaki korelasyonlar analiz edildi. Değişkenler arasındaki korelasyon analizi Spearman testi ya da Pearson testi ile yapıldı.

Bulgular: Kol, Omuz ve El Sorunları Anketi’nin kısa formunun ağrı, parestezi ve Boston Karpal Tünel Anketi ile korelasyonları çok iyi çıktı (p <0.001). Her üç anket te birbirleri ile uyumluydu.

Çıkarımlar: Kol, Omuz ve El Sorunları Anketi’nin kısa formu karpal tünel gevşetmeli hastalar için kolay ve daha pratiktir. Karmaşık puanlamasının yanı sıra, Michigan El Sonuç Anketinin birbirine benzer soruları olan ayrıntılı alt parametreler içermesi ve tamamlanmasının uzun zaman alması deza¬vantajlarıdır. Duruöz El İndeksi’nin ise etkin kullanımını ortaya koyacak daha ileri çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

Karpal tünel sendromu; Duruöz El İndeksi; Michigan El Sonuç Anketi; Kol, Omuz ve El Sorunları Anketi; puanlama yöntemi; cerrahi.

Choosing the most efficacious scoring method for carpal tunnel syndrome

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the most efficacious hand-specific questionnaire to determine functionality in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Methods: The study included 89 patients who underwent open carpal tunnel release surgery within three years prior to the study. A visual analog scale was used to assess the intensity of pain and paresthesia symptoms. Each participant completed the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), the quick form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, and the Duruoz Hand Index (DHI). The BCTQ, pain and paresthesia results were assumed as gold standards. Correlations between the MHQ, Quick-DASH, and the DHI were analyzed. A correlation analysis between the variables was tested using Spearman’s rho test or Pearson’s test for variables.

Results: The QuickDASH was well correlated with pain, paresthesia and the BCTQ (p<0.001). The questionnaires complied with each other.

Conclusion: In addition to its complicated scoring, the MHQ contained detailed subparameters with similar questions and takes a long time to complete. Further studies may confirm the effective usage of the DHI. The easier QuickDASH questionnaire appears to be more practical for carpal tunnel release patients.

Keywords

Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire, carpal tunnel syndrome, Duruoz Hand Index, Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire, quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, scoring method; surgery

References

• Akelman E, Weiss AP. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Etiology and endoscopic treatment. Orthop Clin North Am 1995;26:769-78.
• Akman S, Ertürer E, Celik M, Aksoy B, Gür B, Oztürk I. The results of open surgical release in carpal tunnel syndrome and evaluation of follow-up criteria. [Article in Turkish] Acta Or- thop Traumatol Turc 2002;36:259-64.
• Kanaan N, Sawaya RA. Carpal tunnel syndrome: modern diag- nostic and management techniques. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:311- 4.
• McMillan CR, Binhammer PA. Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Ques- tionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery. Hand (N Y) 2009;4:311-8.
• Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliabil- ity and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Ques- tionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998;23:575-87.
• Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in carpal tunnel surgery. J Hand Surg Am 2005;30:81-6.
• Szabo RM. Outcomes assessment in hand surgery: when are they meaningful? J Hand Surg Am 2001;26:993-1002.
• Ollivere BJ, Logan K, Ellahee N, Miller-Jones JC, Wood M, Nairn DS. Severity scoring in carpal tunnel syndrome helps predict the value of conservative therapy. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009;34:511-5.
• Rege AJ, Sher JL. Can the outcome of carpal tunnel release be predicted? J Hand Surg Br 2001;26:148-50.
• Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the as- sessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:1585-92.
• Öksüz C, Akel BS, Leblebicioğlu G, Kayıhan H. Which hand outcome measurement is best for Turkish speaking patients? Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2012;46:83-8.
• Chatterjee JS, Price PE. Comparative responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Carpal Tun- nel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am 2009;34:273-80.
• Appleby MA, Neville-Smith M, Parrott MW. Functional out- comes post carpal tunnel release: a modified replication of a pre- vious study. J Hand Ther 2009;22:240-9.
• Öksüz Ç, Akel BS, Oskay D, Leblebicioğlu G, Hayran KM. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability process of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in a Turkish pop- ulation. J Hand Surg Am 2011;36:486-92.
• Duger T, Yakut E, Oksuz C, Yorukan S, Bilgutay BS. Turkish adaptation and validity of the DASH questionnaire. Fizyoter Rehabil 2006;17:99-107.
• Duruöz MT, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J, Menkes CJ, Amor B, Dougados M, et al. Development and validation of a rheumatoid hand functional disability scale that assesses functional handi- cap. J Rheumatol 1996;23:1167-72.
• Sezer N, Yavuzer G, Sivrioglu K, Basaran P, Koseoglu BF. Clini- metric properties of the Duruoz hand index in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:309-14.
• Sezgin M, Incel NA, Serhan S, Camdeviren H, As I, Erdoğan C. Assessment of symptom severity and functional status in pa- tients with carpal tunnel syndrome: reliability and functionality of the Turkish version of the Boston Questionnaire. Disabil Re- habil 2006;28:1281-5.
• Koldas Dogan S, Ay S, Evcik D, Baser O. Adaptation of Turkish version of the questionnaire Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoul- der, and Hand (Quick DASH) in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Rheumatol 2011;30:185-91.
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an up- per extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Col- laborative Group (UECG) Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602-8.
• Durmus D, Uzuner B, Durmaz Y, Bilgici A, Kuru O. Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis patients: relationship with disease activity, quality of life, and handgrip strength. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2013;26:467-73.
• Bakhsh H, Ibrahim I, Khan W, Smitham P, Goddard N. Assess- ment of validity, reliability, responsiveness and bias of three com- monly used patient-reported outcome measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2012;14:335-40.
• Brower LM, Poole JL. Reliability and validity of the Duruoz Hand Index in persons with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:805-9.
• Turan Y, Duruöz MT, Aksakalli E, Gürgan A. Validation of Du- ruöz Hand Index for diabetic hand dysfunction. J Investig Med 2009;57:887-91.