A Study of the Relative Responsiveness of Five Sensibility Tests for Assessment of Recovery after Median Nerve Injury and Repair

A longitudinal dynamic cohort study was conducted on patients with median nerve injuries to evaluate the relative responsiveness of five sensibility tests: touch threshold using the WEST (monofilaments), static two-point discrimination, locognosia, a pick-up test and an object recognition test. Repeated assessments were performed starting at 6 months after surgery. In order to compare the relative responsiveness of each test, effect size and the standard response mean were calculated for sensibility changes occurring between 6 and 18 months after repair. Large effect sizes (>0.8) and standard response means (>0.8) were obtained for the WEST, locognosia, pick-up and object recognition tests. Two-point discrimination was hardly measurable at any time point and exhibited strong flooring effects. Further analysis of all time points was undertaken to assess the strength of the monotonic relationship between test scores and time elapsed since surgery. Comparison of monotonicity between the five tests indicated that the WEST performed best, whereas two-point discrimination performed worst. These results suggest that the monofilament test (WEST), locognosia test, Moberg pick-up test and tactile gnosis test capture sensibility changes over time well and should be considered for inclusion in the outcome assessment of patients with median nerve injury.

[1]  R. Forget,et al.  EVALUATION OF CUTANEOUS AND PROPRIOCEPTIVE SENSATION IN CHILDREN: A RELIABILITY STUDY , 1994, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[2]  C. Bombardier,et al.  A taxonomy for responsiveness. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  Ulf Lindblom,et al.  Touch, temperature, and pain in health and disease : mechanisms and assessments : a Wenner-Gren Center International Symposium , 1994 .

[4]  S Weinstein,et al.  Testing sensibility, including touch-pressure, two-point discrimination, point localization, and vibration. , 1993, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[5]  M. Spinner,et al.  Management of Peripheral Nerve Problems , 1980 .

[6]  S Weinstein,et al.  Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex, and laterality , 1968 .

[7]  B. Rosén Recovery of sensory and motor function after nerve repair. A rationale for evaluation. , 1996, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[8]  W L Buford,et al.  The force/time relationship of clinically used sensory testing instruments. , 1997, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[9]  J. Bell-Krotoski,et al.  The repeatability of testing with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. , 1987, The Journal of hand surgery.

[10]  E. Moberg,et al.  Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. , 1958, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[11]  C B Novak,et al.  Development of a new measure of fine sensory function. , 1993, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[12]  Lloyd D. Fisher,et al.  2. Biostatistics: A Methodology for the Health Sciences , 1994 .

[13]  D. Marsh The validation of measures of outcome following suture of divided peripheral nerves supplying the hand. , 1990, Journal of hand surgery.

[14]  G. Lundborg,et al.  A new tactile gnosis instrument in sensibility testing. , 1998, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[15]  C B Novak,et al.  Establishment of reliability in the evaluation of hand sensibility. , 1993, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[16]  C. Jerosch-Herold SHOULD SENSORY FUNCTION AFTER MEDIAN NERVE INJURY AND REPAIR BE QUANTIFIED USING TWO-POINT DISCRIMINATION AS THE CRITICAL MEASURE? , 2000, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery and hand surgery.

[17]  B. Rosén,et al.  Comparing the Responsiveness over Time of Two Tactile Gnosis Tests: Two-Point Discrimination and the STI-Test , 2000 .

[18]  M. Nakada Localization of a constant-touch and moving-touch stimulus in the hand: a preliminary study. , 1993, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[19]  C. Jerosch-Herold Measuring Outcome in Median Nerve Injuries , 1993, Journal of hand surgery.

[20]  William N. Williams,et al.  Preliminary Report of a Methodology for Determining Tactile Location in Adults , 1986 .

[21]  Lloyd D. Fisher,et al.  Biostatistics: A Methodology for the Health Sciences , 1993 .

[22]  G Lundborg,et al.  Assessment of functional outcome after nerve repair in a longitudinal cohort. , 2000, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery and hand surgery.

[23]  C. Kallman,et al.  Evaluation of functional sensation in the hand. , 1983, The Journal of hand surgery.

[24]  J. Wright,et al.  A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  G. Lundborg,et al.  The Long Term Recovery Curve in Adults after Median or Ulnar Nerve Repair: A Reference Interval , 2001, Journal of hand surgery.

[26]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[27]  M. Al-Qattan Semmes Weinstein Monofilaments Versus Weinstein Enhanced Monofilaments: Their Use in the Hand Clinic , 1995 .

[28]  Lewis E. Kazis,et al.  Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status , 1989, Medical care.

[29]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation , 1990, Medical care.

[30]  J. Marshall THE SKIN SENSES , 1969 .