Comparative Analysis of Median Nerve Parameters for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) Diagnosis: Ultrasound vs. Nerve Conduction Study (NCS) This clinical study aims to determine whether ultrasound can be as practical as NCS in diagnosing CTS. It will also evaluate the accuracy of different median nerve measurements in both tests. The main questions it aims to answer are: Can ultrasound accurately detect CTS compared to NCS? Which median nerve measurements (such as size, speed, or function) are most useful for diagnosis? Researchers will compare ultrasound and NCS results in patients with CTS symptoms to determine which test is more reliable and patient-friendly. Participants will: 1. Undergo both an ultrasound and a NCS for comparison. 2. Visit the clinic for testing and evaluation as part of the study. 3. Provide information about their symptoms and medical history related to CTS. This study aims to improve diagnosis accuracy and explore whether ultrasound could be a more comfortable and quicker alternative to NCS for detecting CTS.
This study aims to compare ultrasound and NCS for diagnosing CTS by analyzing key median nerve parameters in both tests. CTS is a common condition caused by compression of the median nerve at the wrist, leading to symptoms such as numbness, tingling, and weakness in the hand. Accurate diagnosis is essential to ensure appropriate treatment. Currently, NCS is considered the standard test for CTS diagnosis, measuring nerve function by assessing conduction velocity and latency. However, ultrasound has emerged as a potential alternative by providing structural imaging of the median nerve, including parameters like cross-sectional area (CSA), echogenicity, and flattening ratio. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether ultrasound can be a reliable, non-invasive, and patient-friendly alternative to NCS for CTS diagnosis. By comparing nerve measurements obtained from both methods, researchers aim to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Participants with suspected CTS will undergo both ultrasound and NCS for comparison. Data will be analyzed to determine which test provides the most precise and clinically useful information. The findings of this study may help refine diagnostic protocols, potentially reducing the need for NCS in certain cases and offering a faster, more comfortable option for patients.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
50
This study involves two diagnostic interventions for evaluating CTS: Ultrasound Examination (Diagnostic Intervention) 1. A high-frequency ultrasound probe will be used to assess the median nerve at the wrist. 2. Parameters measured include cross-sectional area, flattening ratio, and echogenicity. The goal is to determine if ultrasound can accurately diagnose CTS compared to NCS. NCS (Diagnostic Intervention) 1. Surface electrodes will be placed on the skin to stimulate and record median nerve conduction. 2. Parameters such as latency, conduction velocity, and amplitude will be recorded. 3. NCS serves as the gold standard for diagnosing CTS and will be used for comparison with ultrasound results. Each participant will undergo both ultrasound and NCS, allowing researchers to compare their effectiveness in diagnosing CTS.
Combined Military Hospital
Kohat, KPK, Pakistan
Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound Compared to Nerve Conduction Study for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Measuring the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of ultrasound in diagnosing CTS compared to NCS Parameters, including Median Nerve Latency, Amplitude, and Nerve Conduction Velocity
Time frame: Baseline
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.