Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of nerve conduction study parameters between case and control groups

From: The sensitivity of median versus ulnar palmar mixed nerve study in the early diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

NCS parameters

Patients (n=142 hands)

Control (n=71 hands)

T

p

Median motor

    

 MM DL

3.37±0.39 (2.3–4.2)

3.24±0.38 (2.3–3.8)

2.313

0.022*

 MM amp

7.6±2.5 (5–12.2)

8.8±2.3 (5–16.2)

3.39

0.0008**

 MM CV

58.75±3.9 (50–65.7)

58.83±4.8 (50–75)

0.130

0.896

Median sensory

    

 MS PL

3.53±0.3 (2.4–3.7)

2.81±0.52 (2.1–3.4)

12.79

<0.0001**

 MS amp

36.0±19.8 (15–70)

43.73±22.5 (14–76)

2.565

0.011*

 MS CV

56.6±6.3 (46.4–69.1)

55.3±10.1 (50–72.3)

1.151

0.251

MVR

0.7±0.34 (0–1.5)

0.35±0.01 (0–0.5)

8.612

<0.0001**

MVU

0.5±0.3 (0–1.1)

0.23±0.3 (0–0.5)

6.169

<0.0001**

LM-IN

0.7±0.53 (0–2.1)

0.32±0.2 (0–0.5)

5.786

<0.0001**

MIx M-U

0.6±0.43 (0–2.5)

0.27±0.25 (0.02–0.5)

5.977

<0.0001**

Ulnar motor

    

 UM DL

2.4±0.34 (1.96–3.1)

2.3±0.54 (1.46–3.1)

1.65

0.101

 UM amp

9.6±1.8 (5.2–13.1)

9.25±2.3 (5.5–16.6)

1.216

0.225

 UM CV

66.7±3.68 (55.4–81.2)

60.8±4.7 (50.8–80.9)

0.167

0.867

Ulnar sensory

    

 USPL

2.5±0.2 (2–3)

3.4±0.55 (1.94–3.5)

1.93

0.055

 US amp

34.2±20 (8–52)

38.8±18.4 (7.5–68)

1.624

0.106

 US CV

59.6±5.5 (47.7–70)

58.2±6.9 (43.5–77.8)

1.605

0.110

  1. DL, distal latency; amp, amplitude; CV, conduction velocity; MM, median motor; MS, median sensory; PL, peak latency; MVR, median versus radial study; MVU, median versus ulnar sensory study; LM-IN, median versus ulnar lumbrical- interossei motor study; Mix M-U, median versus ulnar palmar mixed nerve study; UM, ulnar motor; US, ulnar sensory
  2. *P is significant at ≤ 0.05
  3. **P is highly significant at < 0.001