The Efficacy of Nerve Conduction Study on Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome

Ji-Young Yoon; Kyung-Chan Lee; Won-Seok Oh; Jin-Hun Hong; Ji-Hoon Kwak; Hong-Ki Park

doi:10.14193/jkfas.2016.20.1.23

Journal List > J Korean Foot Ankle Soc > v.20(1) > 1043403

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Yoon, Lee, Oh, Hong, Kwak, and Park: The Efficacy of Nerve Conduction Study on Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome

Original Article

J Korean Foot Ankle Soc 2015;20(1):23-26.

Published online: 10 March 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14193/jkfas.2016.20.1.23

The Efficacy of Nerve Conduction Study on Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome

Ji-Young Yoon, Kyung-Chan Lee, Won-Seok Oh, Jin-Hun Hong, Ji-Hoon Kwak, Hong-Ki Park

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea

Corresponding Author: Hong-Ki Park Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, 21 Namdong-daero 774beon-gil, Namdong-gu, Incheon 21565, Korea Tel: 82-32-460-3384, Fax: 82-32-468-5437, E-mail: phk@gilhospital.com

Received 14 November 2015 Revised 11 February 2016 Accepted 15 February 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Nerve conduction study (NCS) test is a standard diagnostic study of the tarsal tunnel syndrome. The purpose of this study was to determine the relation between the results of the NCS and postoperative clinical results.

Materials and Methods

From June 2004 to July 2015, 104 patients were diagnosed with tarsal tunnel syndrome and treated surgically. Of 104 patients diagnosed through NCS preoperatively and postoperatively, 41 patients were included in this study. There were 23 male and 18 female patients with mean age of 49.2 years old and the average follow-up period was 15.5 months. NCS, pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and subjective satisfaction were examined preoperatively and postoperatively.

Results

On the preoperative NCS, 32 patients (78.0%) were positive and 9 patients (22.0%) were negative, and 32 positive NCS patients consisted of 9 positive (28.1%), 16 improved (50.0%), and 7 negative (21.9%) postoperatively. VAS score was 7.4 preoperatively and 4.4 postoperatively. According to satisfaction, there were 8 excellent (19.5%), 21 good (51.2%), 6 fair (14.6%), and 6 poor (14.6%) patients. For 32 patients who were positive on the preoperative NCS, the postoperative VAS score was 4.87 and there were 7 excellent (21.9%), 16 good (50.0%), 4 fair (12.5%), and 5 poor (15.6%) patients. Sixteen patients were negative on the postoperative NCS, with a VAS score of 3.75, 1 excellent (6.3%), 11 good (68.8%), 2 fair (12.5%), and 2 poor (12.5%). There was no statistical correlation between the preoperative NCS and postoperative VAS score (p=0.10), between preoperative NCS and postoperative satisfaction (p=0.799), between preoperative NCS and postoperative VAS score (p=0.487), and between postoperative NCS and postoperative satisfaction (p=0.251).

Conclusion

For patients diagnosed with tarsal tunnel syndrome and treated surgically, NCS showed little correlation with postoperative result.

Keywords: Tarsal tunnel syndrome, Neural conduction

References

1. Lau JT, Daniels TR. Tarsal tunnel syndrome: a review of the literature. Foot Ankle Int. 1999; 20:201–9.

2. Kinoshita M, Okuda R, Morikawa J, Jotoku T, Abe M. The dorsiflexion-eversion test for diagnosis of tarsal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83:1835–9.

3. Gondring WH, Shields B, Wenger S. An outcomes analysis of surgical treatment of tarsal tunnel syndrome. Foot Ankle Int. 2003; 24:545–50.

4. Lee CH, Dellon AL. Prognostic ability of Tinel sign in determining outcome for decompression surgery in diabetic and nondiabetic neuropathy. Ann Plast Surg. 2004; 53:523–7.

5. Takakura Y, Kumai T, Takaoka T, Tamai S. Tarsal tunnel syndrome caused by coalition associated with a ganglion. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80:130–3.

6. Kim DH, Ryu S, Tiel RL, Kline DG. Surgical management and results of 135 tibial nerve lesions at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center. Neurosurgery. 2003; 53:1114–24. discussion 1124–5.

7. Myerson M, Soffer S. Lipoma as an etiology of tarsal tunnel syndrome: a report of two cases. Foot Ankle. 1989; 10:176–9.

8. Tsai CC, Lin TM, Lai CS, Lin SD. Tarsal tunnel syndrome secondary to neurilemoma–a case report1 Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2001; 17:216–20.

9. Manasseh N, Cherian VM, Abel L. Malunited calcaneal fracture fragments causing tarsal tunnel syndrome: a rare cause. Foot Ankle Surg1. 2009; 15:207–9.

10. Stefko RM, Lauerman WC, Heckman JD. Tarsal tunnel syndrome caused by an unrecognized fracture of the posterior process of the talus (Cedell fracture). A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76:116–8.

11. Sammarco GJ, Conti SF. Tarsal tunnel syndrome caused by an anomalous muscle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76:1308–14.

12. Rodriguez D, Devos Bevernage B, Maldague P, Deleu PA, Leem-rijse T. Tarsal tunnel syndrome and flexor hallucis longus tendon hypertrophy. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010; 96:829–31.

13. Sugimoto K, Iwai M, Kawate K, Yajima H, Takakura Y. Tenosynovial osteochondromatosis of the tarsal tunnel. Skeletal Radiol. 2003; 32:99–102.

14. Sekiya H, Arai Y, Sugimoto N, Sasanuma H, Hoshino Y. Tarsal tunnel syndrome caused by a talocalcaneal joint amyloidoma in a longterm haemodialysis patient: a case report. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2006; 14:350–3.

15. Sammarco GJ, Chang L. Outcome of surgical treatment of tarsal tunnel syndrome. Foot Ankle Int. 2003; 24:125–31.

16. Cimino WR. Tarsal tunnel syndrome: review of the literature. Foot Ankle. 1990; 11:47–52.

17. Baylan SP, Paik SW, Barnert AL, Ko KH, Yu J, Persellin RH. Prevalence of the tarsal tunnel syndrome in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1981; 20:148–50.

18. Olivieri I, Gemignani G, Siciliano G, Gremignai G, Pasero G. Tarsal tunnel syndrome in seronegative spondyloarthropathy. Br J Rheumatol. 1989; 28:537–9.

19. Frey C, Kerr R. Magnetic resonance imaging and the evaluation of tarsal tunnel syndrome. Foot Ankle. 1993; 14:159–64.

20. Reade BM, Longo DC, Keller MC. Tarsal tunnel syndrome. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2001; 18:395–408.

21. Oh SJ, Arnold TW, Park KH, Kim DE. Electrophysiological improvement following decompression surgery in tarsal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve. 1991; 14:407–10.

22. Pfeiffer WH, Cracchiolo A 3rd. Clinical results after tarsal tunnel decompression. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76:1222–30.

23. Dumitru D, Kalantri A, Dierschke B. Somatosensory evoked potentials of the medial and lateral plantar and calcaneal nerves. Muscle Nerve. 1991; 14:665–71.

24. Felsenthal G, Butler DH, Shear MS. Across-tarsal-tunnel motor-nerve conduction technique. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 73:64–9.

25. DiStefano V, Sack JT, Whittaker R, Nixon JE. Tarsal-tunnel syndrome. Review of the literature and two case reports. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1972; 88:76–9.

261. Oh SJ, Kim HS, Ahmad BK. The near-nerve sensory nerve conduction in tarsal tunnel syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985; 48:999–1003.

27. Takakura Y, Kitada C, Sugimoto K, Tanaka Y, Tamai S. Tarsal tunnel syndrome. Causes and results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73:125–8.

28. Goodgold J, Kopell HP, Spielholz NI. The tarsal-tunnel syndrome. Objective diagnostic criteria. N Engl J Med. 1965; 273:742–5.

29. Le Quesne PM, Casey EB. Recovery of conduction velocity distal to a compressive lesion. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1974; 37:1346–51.

Table 1.

Reference Values on the Nerve Conduction Study

Nerve	Latency (ms)	Amplitude	Conduction velocity (m/s)
Medial plantar	3.8±0.5	11.6±4.3 mV	54.9±7.6
Lateral plantar	3.9±0.5	11.6±4.3 mV	51.2±3.9
Superfical peroneal medial branch	3.4±0.4	18.3±8.0 μV	51.2±5.7
Superfical peroneal intermediate branch	3.4±0.4	15.1±8.2 μV	51.3±5.4
Deep peroneal	3.6±0.4	3.4±1.4 μV	42.0±5.0
Sural	3.4±0.3	17.5±7.2 μV	–

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 2.

Summary of Results

	Nerve conduction study
	Preoperative		Postoperative
	Positive (n=32)	Negative (n=9)	Positive (n=9)	Negative (n=16)
VAS score	4.87	2.9	5.1	3.75
Satisfaction
Excellent	7 (21.9)	1 (11.1)	4 (44.4)	1 (6.3)
Good	16 (50.0)	5 (55.6)	3 (33.3)	11 (68.8)
Fair	4 (12.5)	2 (22.2)	1 (11.1)	2 (12.5)
Poor	5 (15.6)	1 (11.1)	1 (11.1)	2 (12.5)

Values are presented as mean score or number (%).

VAS: visual analogue scale.

TOOLS

Similar articles