Assessment of the Boston Questionnaire in Diagnosis of Idiopathic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Comparing Scores with Clinical and Neurophysiological Findings

Abstract

Aim: In this study we aimed to make a comparison of Turkish version of Boston Questionnaire (BQ) scores with clinical and electrophysiological findings in idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome. Method: Hundred patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome were included in the study. BQ was applied for all the patients. Data were compared with visual analogue scale (VAS) and electrophysiological severity scale (ESS). Results: Eighty-six of patients were female and 14 were male with mean age 44.1±9.72. A statistically significant correlation between BQ and VAS and EES scores was obtained (p

Keywords

• Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Boston Questionnaire, Turkish Version

İdiopatik Karpal Tünel Sendromunda Boston Anketinin kullanılması: Skorlarının Klinik ve Nörofizyolojik Bulgular ile Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, idiopatik karpal tünel sendromunda, Boston Anketinin (BA) Türkçe versiyonunun ankette elde edilen skorlarının klinik ve elektrofizyolojik bulgularla karşılaştırılmasını yapmayı amaçladık. Yöntem: İdiopatik karpal tünel sendromlu 100 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Hastaların hepsine BA’i uygulandı. Alınan sonuçlar vizüel analog skala (VAS) ve elektrofizyolojik ciddiyet skalası (ESS) ile karşılaştırılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Toplam 100 olgunun 86’sı kadın, 14’ü erkekti. Ortalama yaşları 44.1±9.72 olarak değerlendirildi Hastalara uygulanan BA skorları ile VAS ve ESS arasında anlamlı bir ilişki saptandı (p

Keywords

• Karpal Tünel Sendromu,Boston anketi,Türkçe versiyon

References

1. Tay LB, Urkude R, Verma KK. Clinical profile, electrodiagnosis and outcome in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: Singapore Med J. 47:1049-1052, 2006.
2. Şenay Özdolap, Selda Sarıkaya, Murat Sumer, H.Tuğrul Atasoy. Karpal Tünel Sendromlu Hastalarda Klinik Bulguların Elektrodiagnostik Testler ile İlişkisi. Türk Fiz Tıp Rehab Derg 5:134-137, 2005.
3. Kohara N. Clinical and electrophysio- logical findings in carpal tunnel syndrome. Brain Nerve. Nov; 59:1229- 1238, 2007.
4. Robinson LR. Electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 18:733-746, 2007.
5. Mondelli M, Padua L, Giannini F, Bibbo G, Aprile I, Rossi S. A self-administered questionnare of unlar neuropathy at the elbow. Neurol Sci 27:402-411, 2006.
6. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Lawren HD, Geri GH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. A self-administered questionnaire fort he assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Surg (Am) 75:1585- 1592, 1993.
7. American Academy of Neurology Practice parameter for carpal tunnel syndrome (summary statement): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 43:2406-2409, 1993.
8. Mondelli M, Giannini F, Giacchi M. Carpal tunnel syndrome incidence in a general population. Neurology 58:289- 294, 2002.

9. Padua L, LoMonaco M, Gregori B et al. Neurophysiological classification and sensitivity in 500 carpal tunnel syndrome hands. Acta Neurol Scand 96: 211-217, 1997.
10. Bland JD, Rudolfer SM. Clinical surveillance of carpal tunnel syndrome in two areas of the United Kingdom. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74:1674- 1679, 2003.
11. Bland JD. Do nerve conduction studies predict the outcome of carpal tunnel compression? Muscle Nerve 24:935-940, 2001.
12. Sambandam SN, Priyanka P, Gul A, Ilango B. Critical analysis of outcome measures used in the assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Int Orthop. Mar 17, 2007.
13. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Question- naire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in carpal tunnel surgery. J Hand Surg [Am]. 30:81-86, 2005.
14. Greenslade JR, Mehta RL, Belward P, Warwick DJ. Dash and Boston questionnaire assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome outcome: what is the responsiveness of an outcome questionnaire? J Hand Surg [Br]. 29:159- 164, 2004.
15. Braun RM, Jackson WJ. Electrical studies as a prognostic factor in the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am] 19:893-900, 1994.
16. Finsen V, Russwurm H. Neurophysiology not required before surgery for typical carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Br] 26:61-64, 2001.
17. Heybeli N, Kutluhan S, Demirci S, Kerman M, Mumcu EF. Assessment of outcome of carpal tunnel syndrome: a comparison of electrophysiological findings and a self-administered Boston questionnaire. J Hand Surg [Br]. 27:259- 264, 2002.
18. Atroshi I, Johnsson R, Sprinchorn A. Self-administered outcome instrument in carpal tunnel syndrome. Reliability, validity and responsiveness evaluated in 102 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 69:82, 1998.
19. Katz JN, Gelberman RH, Wright EA, Lew RA, Liang MH. Responsiveness of self- reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 32:1127-1133, 1994.
20. Yağcı İ, Yılmaz L, Yağmurlu F, Keskin E. D, Bodur H. Karpal Tünel Sendromu Tedavisinde Splint, Splint ile Lokal Steroid Enjeksiyonu ve Cerrahinin Karşılaştırılması. Türk Fiz Tıp Rehab Derg 52:55-60, 2006.
21. Gürçay E, Ünlü E, Bal A, Gürçay A. G, Aydoğ E, Çakcı A. Karpal Tünel Sendromunun Tedavisinde İyontoforez, Lokal Kortikosteroid Enjeksiyon ve Non- Steroid Anti-İnflamatuar İlaç Etkinliğinin Karşılaştırılması.Fırat Tıp Dergisi, 13: 39-42, 2008.