Suppr超能文献

进行Tinel试验时检查者之间和检查者内部的变异性。

Intra- and inter-examiner variability in performing Tinel's test.

作者信息

Lifchez Scott D, Means Kenneth R, Dunn Reginald E, Williams Eric H, Dellon A Lee

机构信息

Johns Hopkins University, Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baltimore, MD, USA.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Am. 2010 Feb;35(2):212-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.11.006.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The Tinel sign was adopted in the early 1950s to detect sites of nerve compression. There have been few attempts to standardize how one elicits Tinel's sign. The goal of this study was to evaluate intra- and inter-examiner variability in the force generated using different techniques to elicit Tinel's sign.

METHODS

Nine clinicians, consisting of 3 experienced hand and peripheral nerve surgeons, 3 junior hand and peripheral nerve surgeons, and 3 surgeons in training were included in the study. Three different Tinel-type maneuvers were evaluated: (1) striking the load cell using the dominant middle finger only ("single-finger strike"), (2) using the dominant index and middle finger together ("double-finger strike"), and (3) preloading with the nondominant thumb and then striking the thumb with the dominant middle finger ("preload"). Test subjects were instructed to use their customary range of force during the testing. Each subject performed 3 sets of 5 strikes per technique.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in nearly all subjects between the range of force generated with single- or double-finger techniques and preload technique. There was also a difference in nearly all subjects when comparing the range of forces using the single-and double-finger techniques. In addition, there were large differences in the range of forces produced by the examiners for each technique.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no standardization for eliciting the Tinel sign. This study demonstrates considerable intra- and inter-examiner differences in the range of forces generated by the different Tinel's techniques that are used in clinical practice. This variability might explain clinical differences between examiners in the ability to obtain a Tinel sign in a patient and might explain the inconsistency of sensitivity and specificity reported for Tinel's sign. Further research on standardization is needed, and future study protocols using Tinel's sign should take these findings into account.

摘要

目的

20世纪50年代初采用Tinel征来检测神经受压部位。几乎没有人尝试规范引出Tinel征的方法。本研究的目的是评估使用不同技术引出Tinel征时,检查者之间以及检查者自身用力的变异性。

方法

9名临床医生参与了本研究,其中包括3名经验丰富的手部和周围神经外科医生、3名初级手部和周围神经外科医生以及3名实习外科医生。评估了三种不同的Tinel式手法:(1)仅用优势手中指敲击测力传感器(“单指敲击”);(2)同时使用优势手的食指和中指(“双指敲击”);(3)先用非优势手拇指预加载,然后用优势手中指敲击拇指(“预加载”)。测试对象被要求在测试过程中使用其习惯的用力范围。每个对象每种技术进行3组,每组5次敲击。

结果

几乎所有受试者在单指或双指技术与预加载技术所产生的力的范围之间存在显著差异。在比较单指和双指技术的力的范围时,几乎所有受试者也存在差异。此外,检查者对每种技术所产生的力的范围也存在很大差异。

结论

引出Tinel征尚无标准化方法。本研究表明,在临床实践中使用的不同Tinel技术所产生的力的范围,在检查者自身以及检查者之间存在相当大的差异。这种变异性可能解释了检查者在患者身上获得Tinel征能力的临床差异,也可能解释了Tinel征报道的敏感性和特异性不一致的原因。需要进一步开展标准化研究,未来使用Tinel征的研究方案应考虑这些发现。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验