Sensory exam with a quantitative tuning fork

Background: In the standard neurologic examination, outcome measures of sensation testing are typically qualitative and subjective. The authors compared the outcome of vibratory sense evaluation using a quantitative Rydel-Seiffer 64 Hz tuning fork with qualitative vibration testing, and two other features of the neurologic evaluation, deep tendon reflexes and sensory nerve conduction studies. Methods: The authors studied 184 subjects, including 126 with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and 58 controls, over the course of a weekend. Standard neurologic examinations and quantitative vibratory testing were performed. Sensory nerve action potentials (SNAP) were tested as a measure of sensory nerve function. Tests were carried out by different examiners who were blinded to the results of other testing and to clinical information other than the diagnosis of Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. Results: Quantitative vibration measurements in all body regions correlated with sural SNAP amplitudes. Quantitative vibration outcomes were more strongly related to sural SNAP results than qualitative evaluations of vibration. Quantitative vibration testing also detected a loss of sensation with increased age in all body regions tested. Conclusions: Quantitative vibratory evaluation with Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork is rapid, has high inter- and intrarater reliability, and provides measures for evaluating changes in sensory function over time. Examinations with the quantitative tuning fork are also more sensitive and specific than qualitative vibration testing for detecting changes in sensory nerve function. Use of the quantitative tuning fork takes no more time, provides more objective information, and should replace the qualitative vibratory testing method that is now commonly used in the standard neurologic examination.

[1]  T. Larson,et al.  Patterns of quantitative sensation testing of hypoesthesia and hyperalgesia are predictive of diabetic polyneuropathy: a study of three cohorts. Nerve growth factor study group. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[2]  V. Bril,et al.  Comparison of a Neurothesiometer and Vibration in Measuring Vibration Perception Thresholds and Relationship to Nerve Conduction Studies , 1997, Diabetes Care.

[3]  V. Bril,et al.  Comparison of vibration perception thresholds obtained with the Neurothesiometer and the CASE IV and relationship to nerve conduction studies , 2002, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[4]  J C Arezzo,et al.  Quantitative sensory testing , 2003, Neurology.

[5]  P. Schmitz,et al.  Measuring vibration threshold with a graduated tuning fork in normal aging and in patients with polyneuropathy , 1998, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[6]  D. Yarnitsky,et al.  Clinical applications of quantitative sensory testing (QST) , 1998, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[7]  S Gilman,et al.  Joint position sense and vibration sense: anatomical organisation and assessment , 2002, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[8]  J. Richardson The clinical identification of peripheral neuropathy among older persons. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[9]  M. Okun,et al.  Origins of the Sensory Examination in Neurology , 2002, Seminars in neurology.

[10]  P. Schmitz,et al.  Reliability and responsiveness of a graduated tuning fork in immune mediated polyneuropathies , 2000, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[11]  Bernhard Neundörfer,et al.  Normative values of vibratory perception in 530 children, juveniles and adults aged 3–79 years , 1998, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[12]  R. Bing,et al.  Compendium of Regional Diagnosis in Affections of the Brain and Spinal Cord , 1927, The Indian Medical Gazette.