Skip to main content
Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation
Download PDF
  • Original Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Electrophysiological and clinical comparison of local steroid injection by means of proximal versus distal approach in patients with mild and moderate carpal tunnel syndrome

Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation volume 42, pages 120–127 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Local corticosteroid injection is one of the treatment modalities for carpal tunnel syndrome. Symptomatic and electrophysiological improvement following local corticosteroid injection has been documented.

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of proximal and distal approaches of local steroid injection in patients with mild and moderate carpal tunnel syndrome on clinical scores and electrophysiological parameters at the end of 1 month following injection.

Patients and methods

A total of 30 patients were included and randomly assigned into one of the two groups based on the local steroid injection approach either by means of distal (group I) or by mean of proximal approach (group II). Clinical and electrophysiological examinations were carried out before and 1 month following the injection.

Results

There was a significant reduction in the pain and disability scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire between the baseline and follow-up in both groups. Median motor nerve distal latency was statistically significantly reduced in both groups 1 month after the injection. Median motor conduction velocity and amplitude (amp) showed a statistically nonsignificant difference 1 month following the injection. Median sensory distal latency, amp, and conduction velocity showed statistically significant difference between the two groups. The average duration of the procedure in group I was 9.29 ± 0.76 s compared with 47.91 ± 9.66 s in group II. The average grade of pain expressed by the patients in group I was 1.97 ± 0.82 compared with 5.11 ± 0.67 in group II.

Conclusion

Local corticosteroid injection at the carpal tunnel using the distal approach is associated with favorable clinical and electrophysiological results similar to those reported using the proximal approach. The distal approach is much less time consuming and more comfortable compared with the proximal approach.

References

  1. Ghasemi-rod M, Nosair E, Vegh A, Mohammdi Akkad A, Lesha E, Mohammadi MH, et al. A handy review of carpal tunnel syndrome: from anatomy to diagnosis and treatment. World J Radiol 2014; 6:284–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Povlsen B, Bashir M, Wong F. Long-term result and patient reported outcome of wrist splint treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2014; 48:175–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jenkins PJ, Duckworth AD, Watts AC, McEachan JE. Corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome: a 5-year survivorship analysis. Hand (N Y) 2012; 7:151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shi Q, MacDermid JC. Is surgical intervention more effective than non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome? A systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 2011; 6:17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim HJ, Park SH. Median nerve injuries caused by carpal tunnel injections. Korean J Pain 2014; 27:112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Helwig AL. Treating carpal tunnel syndrome. J Fam Pract 2000; 49:79–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hagebeuk EE, de Weerd AW. Clinical and electrophysiological follow-up after local steroid injection in the carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115:1464–1468.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hui A, Wong S, Leung C, et al. A randomized controlled trial of surgery vs. steroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. Neurology 2005; 64:2074–2078.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tavares SP, Giddins GE. Nerve injury following steroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. A report of two cases. J Hand Surg Br 1996; 21:208–209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Park GY, Kim SK, Park JH. Median nerve injury after carpal tunnel injection serially followed by ultrasonographic, sonoelastographic, and electrodiagnostic studies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 90:336–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Propeck T, Quinn TJ, Jacobson JA, Paulino AF, Habra G, Darian VB. Sonography and MR imaging of bifid median nerve with anatomic and histologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:1721–1725.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindley SG, Kleinert JM. Prevalence of anatomic variations encountered in elective carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am 2003; 28:849–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith J, Wisniewski SJ, Finnoff JT, Payne JM. Sonographically guided carpal tunnel injections: the ulnar approach. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:1485–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim DH, Jang JE, Park BK. Anatomical basis of ulnar approach in carpal tunnel injection. Pain Physician 2013; 16:E191–E198.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Habib GS, Badarny S, Rawashdeh H. A novel approach of local corticosteroid injection for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Rheumatol 2006; 25:338–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Demirci S, Kutluhan S, Koyuncuoglu H, et al. Comparison of open carpal tunnel release and local steroid treatment outcomes in idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome. Rheumatol Int 2002; 22:33–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Armstrong A, Devor W, Borschel L, Contreras R. Intracarpal steroid injection is safe and effective for short-term management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 2004; 29:82–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Aygul R, Ulvi H, Karatay S, Deniz O, Varuglo A. Determination of sensitive electrophysiologic parameters at follow-up of different steroid treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 22:222–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, and American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome: summary statement. Muscle Nerve 2002; 25:918–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bland JDA. Neurophysiological grading scale for carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 2000; 23:1280–1283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Meirelles LM, Santos JBG, Santos LL, Branco MA, Faloppa F, Leite VM, Fernandes CH. Evaluation of Boston Questionnaire applied at late post-operative period of carpal tunnel syndrome operated with the paineRetinaculatome through palmar port. Asta Ortop Bras 2006; 14: 126–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:633–638.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Visser LH, Ngo Q, Groeneweg SJM, Brekelmans G. Long term effect of local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome: A relation with electrophysiologic severity. Clin Neurophysiol 2012; 123:838–841.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weiss AP, Sachar K, Gendreau M. Conservative management of carpal tunnel syndrome: a reexamination of steroid injection and splinting. J Hand Surg Am 1994; 19:410–415.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Burke FD, Ellis J, McKenna H, Bradley MJ. Primary care management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Postgrad Med J 2003; 79:433–437.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham RG, Hudson DA, Solomons M, Singer M. A prospective study to assess the outcome of steroid injections and wrist splinting for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 550–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dubert T, Racasan O. A reliable technique for avoiding the median nerve during carpal tunnel injections. Joint Bone Spine 2006; 73:77–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dammers JW, Roos Y, Veering MM, Vermeulen M. Injection with methylprednisolone in patients with the carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized double blind trial testing three different doses. J Neurol 2006; 253:574–577.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ozturk K, Esenyel CZ, Sonmez M, Esenyel M, Kahraman S, Senel B. Comparison of carpal tunnel injection techniques: a cadaver study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2008; 42:300–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gelberman RH, Rydevik BL, Pess GM, Szabo RM, Lundborg G. Carpal tunnel syndrome. A scientific basis for clinical care. Orthop Clin North Am 1988; 19:115–124.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Racasan O, Dubert T. The safest location for steroid injection in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br 2005; 30:412–414.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McConnell JR, Bush DC. Intraneural steroid injection as a complication in the management of carpal-tunnel syndrome – a report of 3 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 250:181–184.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Frederick HA, Carter PR, Littler JW. Injection injuries to the median and ulnar nerves at the wrist. J Hand Surg Am 1992; 17:645–647.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hussain SS, Taylor C, Van Rooyen R. Ulnar artery ischemia following corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. N Z Med J 2011; 124:80–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kamanli A, Bezgincan M, Kaya A. Comparison of local steroid injection into carpal tunnel via proximal and distal approaches in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Bratisl Lek Listy 2011; 112:37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Badarny S, Rawashdeh H, Meer J, Abed S, Habib G. Repeated electrophysiological studies in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome following local corticosteroid injection using a novel approach. IMAJ 2011; 13:25–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Giannini F, Passero S, Cioni R, et al. Electrophysiological evaluation of local steroid injection in carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72:738–742.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ozdemir G, Demir R, Ozel L, Ulvi H. The effect of steroid injection by novel method in carpal tunnel syndrome on pain severity and electrophysiological findings. Dicle Med J 2014; 41:277–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, 211 Abdel-Hamid Keshk Street, Hadaeq El-Qubba, 11646, Cairo, Egypt

    Mohja Ahmed Abdel-Fattah EL-Badawy MD (Lecturer of Physical Medicine)

Authors
  1. Mohja Ahmed Abdel-Fattah EL-Badawy MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohja Ahmed Abdel-Fattah EL-Badawy MD.

Additional information

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

EL-Badawy, M.A.AF. Electrophysiological and clinical comparison of local steroid injection by means of proximal versus distal approach in patients with mild and moderate carpal tunnel syndrome. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 42, 120–127 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-161X.163944

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-161X.163944

Keywords