A comparison between ultrasonographic, surgical and histological assessment of tenosynovits in a cohort of idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome patients

David Cate, Nick Glaser, J.J. Luime, King Lam, JWG Jacobs, Ruud Selles, Mieke Hazes, M Bertleff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may be caused by subclinical tenosynovitis which may be detected by ultrasonography (US). The objective of this study is to investigate whether ultrasonography has a place in the workup of idiopathic CTS patients. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of tenosynovitis and its association with the clinical outcome of surgery. A cohort of 31 consecutive idiopathic CTS patients (33 wrists) who were a candidate for carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgery was assessed using greyscale ultrasonography (GSUS) and power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS). Peroperatively, tenosynovitis was evaluated macroscopically by the surgeon. Tissue samples from areas macroscopically suspected for tenosynovitis were taken for histological evaluation. The clinical outcome of the operation was assessed after 6 months and if applicable alternative diagnoses for the CTS were proposed. US tenosynovitis (OMERACT) was detected preoperatively in 58 % of the wrists. Peroperatively, macroscopic tenosynovitis was detected visually in 88 % of the wrists. Histological evaluation demonstrated a limited influx of lymphocytes indicative of a mild chronic inflammatory response in 19 %. Non-specific reactive changes were observed in 78 % of the cases. Ultrasonographically defined tenosynovitis was associated with an OR of 2.81 (95 % CI 0.61-13) for responding well to surgery. Most cases of ultrasonographic and peroperatively defined tenosynovitis were classified by histology as reactive changes. The presence of ultrasonographic tenosynovitis might be associated with a better clinical outcome of surgery.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)775-780
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Rheumatology
Volume35
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Cite this