Electrodiagnostic Testing Characteristics of Diabetic People with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome^[*]

Abstract

Objective The present study aimed to correlate electroneuromyography (ENMG) findings in diabetic and nondiabetic subjects with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Methods In total, 154 patients were evaluated in a hand surgery outpatient clinic. All ENMG tests were bilaterally performed by a single neurologist. Qualitative variables were described for all patients with CTS according to their diabetic status, and the chi-squared test was used to reveal any association. A joint model was adjusted to determine the influence of diabetes on ENMG severity in CTS patients.

Results The sample consisted of 117 women and 37 men, with an average age of 56.9 years old. Electroneuromyography demonstrated bilateral CTS in 82.5% of the patients. Diabetes was identified in 21.4% of the cases. Severe ENMG was prevalent.

Conclusion There was no association between diabetes and ENMG severity in patients with CTS. Level of evidence IV, case series.

Keywords

diabetes - electromyography - median neuropathy - paresthesia - carpal tunnel syndrome

Introduction

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a frequent neuropathy in diabetic patients, affecting 14% of diabetics with no neuropathy and 30% of subjects with diabetic neuropathy.[1] [2] Carpal tunnel syndrome is common in diabetic patients because of surrounding synovial tissue changes and secondary nerve damage due to elevated blood glucose levels.[3]

The most common neurological complications in diabetic subjects include symmetric sensorimotor polyneuropathies and focal neuropathies; compressive neuropathies of the upper extremity are the most frequent complications in any stage of diabetes.[4]

The potential pathogenesis of diabetic CTS involves increased circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines resulting from the final glycation product, which causes demyelination and peripheral axonal loss, and increases the susceptibility of several nerves, including the median nerve, to compression.[5]

Although the literature reports characteristics of diabetic subjects with and without CTS,[3] few recent publications demonstrate clinical, epidemiological and electroneuromyographic findings in CTS patients with diabetes or not. The present study aimed to describe any differences in clinical and electroneuromyography (ENMG) findings in both diabetic and nondiabetic subjects with CTS.

Casuistry and Methods

Cross-sectional study performed at a hand surgery outpatient clinic and evaluating 154 patients. The procedures complied with the Research Ethics Committee, authorization number 3.640.789, and with the Declaration of Helsinki from 1964. All participants signed an informed consent form.

Both male and female subjects, aged > 18 years old, with positive upper limb ENMG for CTS were included in the study. Pregnant women, patients with type I diabetes or with a history of previous wrist surgery were excluded from the sample.

All ENMGs were bilaterally performed by a single neurologist, unrelated to this study, using a Neuropack EMG electroneuromyograph (S1, MEB-9400K, Nihon Kohden Corporation, Tokyo, Japan).

The electroneuromyographic findings were classified according to the Stevens system as mild (sensory conduction changes alone), moderate (sensory and motor conduction changes) and severe (altered sensory and motor conduction in addition to denervation signs on needle electromyography).[6]

Age, as a quantitative variable, was described as mean and standard deviation (SD) values. Qualitative variables were described for all patients with CTS and positive ENMG findings according to their diabetic status, and the chi-squared test was used to reveal any association.[7]

In total, 159 subjects with positive ENMG findings for CTS were treated; since 5 subjects were excluded due to incomplete reports, the final study sample consisted of 154 participants.

Regarding gender, 117 (76.0%) women and 37 men (24.0%) were included. The average age was 56.9 ± 10.9 years old (mean and SD). Body mass index (BMI) was within the normal range in 71 (46.1%) subjects, with 51 (33.1%) overweight and 32 (20.8%) obese patients. The ENMG demonstrated bilateral CTS in 127 (82.5%) subjects and unilateral CTS in 27 (17.5%) subjects. Thirty-three (21.4%) patients were diagnosed with diabetes, and 121 (78.6%) were not diabetics. Fifty-two (33.8%) subjects had only one systemic disease in addition to diabetes, whereas 52 (33.8%) had ≥ 2 diseases, and 50 (32.4%) presented no comorbidities.

For statistical analysis, a joint model was adjusted to determine the influence of diabetes on ENMG severity in CTS patients. Variables with a descriptive level < 0.20 in bivariate tests (p < 0.20) were inserted in the model. Significance was set at a 5% level.

Results

Eighteen (11.7%) subjects presented a mild ENMG pattern, whereas 64 (41.6%) had a moderate pattern and 72 (46.7%) had a severe pattern.

[Table 1] shows that diabetes was more frequent among women with CTS (p = 0.023). In addition, the frequency of associated systemic diseases was higher in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients (p < 0.001).

Table 1

Variable	Diabetes		p-value
	No (n = 121)	Yes (n = 33)
Age (years old)			0.244[*]
Mean ± standard deviation	56.4 ± 10.9	58.9 ± 11
Median (minimum; maximum value)	56 (30; 84)	58 (33; 89)
Gender, n (%)			0.023
Female	87 (71.9)	30 (90.9)
Male	34 (28.1)	3 (9.1)
BMI classification, n (%)			0.121
Normal	61 (50.4)	10 (30.3)
Overweight	37 (30.6)	14 (42.4)
Obesity	23 (19)	9 (27.3)
ENMG laterality, n (%)			0.150
Unilateral	24 (19.8)	3 (9.1)
Bilateral	97 (80.2)	30 (90.9)
Systemic conditions, n (%)			<0.001
1	50 (41.3)	2 (6.1)
≥ 2	21 (17.4)	31 (93.9)
None	50 (41.3)	0 (0)

[Table 2] shows that only CTS laterality was associated with CTS severity (p < 0.001), and patients with bilateral CTS had more severe ENMG findings.

Table 2

Variable	ENMG Classification			p-value
	Mild	Moderate	Severe
Age (years old)				0.081[*]
Mean ± standard deviation	56.3 ± 10.6	54.8 ± 10.8	58.9 ± 10.8
Median (minimum; maximum value)	54.5 (42; 83)	55 (30; 81)	58 (41; 89)
Gender, n (%)				0.373
Female	14 (12)	45 (38.5)	58 (49.6)
Male	4 (10.8)	19 (51.4)	14 (37.8)
BMI classification, n (%)				0.821
Normal	8 (11.3)	31 (43.7)	32 (45.1)
Overweight	6 (11.8)	18 (35.3)	27 (52.9)
Obesity	4 (12.5)	15 (46.9)	13 (40.6)
ENMG laterality, n (%)				< 0.001
Unilateral	10 (37)	15 (55.6)	2 (7.4)
Bilateral	8 (6.3)	49 (38.6)	70 (55.1)
Systemic conditions, n (%)				0.516
1	7 (13.5)	19 (36.5)	26 (50)
≥ 2	4 (7.7)	21 (40.4)	27 (51.9)
None	7 (14)	24 (48)	19 (38)
Diabetes				0.466
No	16 (13.2)	50 (41.3)	55 (45.5)
Yes	2 (6.1)	14 (42.4)	17 (51.5)

Diabetes was not statistically associated with ENMG severity (p = 0.466).

[Table 3] shows that CTS laterality in ENMG was influenced in a statistically significant way (p = 0.023). Bilateral CTS patients had ENMG grades 44% more severe compared with patients with unilateral positive findings.

Table 3

Variable	Coefficient	95% Confidence interval		p-value
		Inferior value	Superior value
ENMG (bilateral)	1.44	1.05	1.98	0.023
Diabetes	1.01	0.79	1.30	0.927
Age (years old)	1.001	0.991	1.011	0.836

Diabetes did not influence the ENMG grade for CTS (p = 0.927).

Discussion

In population-based studies, the prevalence of CTS is higher in women and increases with age;[4] it is estimated that the incidence in females is up to three-fold higher when compared with males.[8] According to Papanas et al.,[9] the prevalence of CTS in diabetics ranges from 11 to 25%, and the condition is more common in women. Our results were consistent with the literature, with an increased prevalence of CTS in women with a mean age of 56 years old in nondiabetics and 58 years old in diabetic subjects.

Phalen[10] reported that the median nerve from diabetic subjects may be more susceptible to compression within the carpal tunnel when compared with nondiabetics. In the 1960s, Mulder et al.[11] found a 9% prevalence of diabetes in people with CTS, whereas Blodgett et al.[12] reported a 6.4% prevalence. In 1985, Comi et al.[13] reported a 7.7% prevalence, and Kouyoumdjian,[14] 4.4%. The number of diabetics in our sample (21.4%) was considerably higher compared with the literature. We believe this is due to our service being a regional reference, with a high number of cases.

According to Becker et al.,[15] a high BMI constitutes a risk factor for CTS; other risk factors include female gender, age ranging from 40 to 60 years old and diabetes. For Bland,[16] diabetic patients with CTS have a higher frequency of overweight and obesity compared to those with normal BMI. Our results are consistent with those from the aforementioned authors, with a higher prevalence in women aged 56 years old. Although 69.7% of the diabetics with CTS were overweight or obese, there was no difference compared with nondiabetics (49.6%).

Spahn et al.[17] found bilateral CTS in 50 to 60% of cases. In our sample, 82.46% of the patients had bilateral electroneuromyographic changes, with 44% of them presenting severe ENMG. However, there was no correlation between laterality and ENMG severity (p = 0.023).

We observed a considerable number of people with common systemic conditions, including hypertension, rheumatological and cardiological diseases (67.6%), with significant differences between diabetics and nondiabetics. On the other hand, no statistical difference was found in ENMG between diabetic and nondiabetic CTS patients (p = 0.927). This may be related to the heterogeneity of the evaluated group, since age, female gender, high BMI, time of evolution, and adequate or inadequate clinical control were shown to be independent risk factors for CTS.

The evaluation of CTS patients at a regional reference service to assess the relationship between diabetes and ENMG severity is a positive point of our study.

A limitation of the present study may be related to the fact that CTS patients may not represent the real influence of diabetes on the severity of ENMG for assessing this condition, since many diabetics are followed-up at the endocrinology service.

It is also not possible to affirm peremptorily that there is a relationship between the greater severity of electroneuromyographic findings and CTS bilaterality. Further studies, with a larger sample and more comprehensive inclusion criteria, are required to assess this relationship.

Conclusion

We conclude that CTS is prevalent in women at the 5^th decade of life, both diabetics and nondiabetics, and that there is no association between diabetes and ENMG severity in subjects with CTS.

Conflito de Interesses

Os autores declaram não haver conflito de interesses.

^* Study developed at the Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Hand Surgery, Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, MG,, Brazil.

• Referências

• 1 Ibrahim I, Khan WS, Goddard N, Smitham P. Carpal tunnel syndrome: a review of the recent literature. Open Orthop J 2012; 6: 69-76
• 2 Perkins BA, Olaleye D, Bril V. Carpal tunnel syndrome in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (03) 565-569
• 3 Marciano LHC, Leite VM, Araujo PM, Garbino JA. Avaliação do comprometimento neurológico e da prevalência da síndrome do túnel do carpo em pacientes portadores de diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Acta Fisiatr 2007; 14 (03) 134-141
• 4 Mondelli M, Aretini A, Rossi S. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow in diabetes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88 (04) 278-285
• 5 Mojaddidi MA, Ahmed MS, Ali R. et al. Molecular and pathological studies in the posterior interosseous nerve of diabetic and non-diabetic patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Diabetologia 2014; 57 (08) 1711-1719
• 6 Stevens JC. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. AAEM minimonograph #26: the electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20 (12) 1477-1486
• 7 Kirkwood BR, Sterne JA. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed.. Blackwell Science; Massachusetts: 2006
• 8 Sassi SA, Giddins G. Gender differences in carpal tunnel relative cross-sectional area: a possible causative factor in idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016; 41 (06) 638-642
• 9 Papanas N, Maltezos E. The diabetic hand: a forgotten complication?. J Diabetes Complications 2010; 24 (03) 154-162
• 10 Phalen GS. The carpal-tunnel syndrome. Clinical evaluation of 598 hands. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1972; 83 (83) 29-40
• 11 Mulder DW, Lambert EH, Bastron JA, Sprague RG. The neuropathies associated with diabetes mellitus. A clinical and electromyographic study of 103 unselected diabetic patients. Neurology 1961; 11 (04) 275-284
• 12 Blodgett Jr RC, Lipscomb PR, Hill RW. Incidence of hematologic disease in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. JAMA 1962; 182: 814-815
• 13 Comi G, Lozza L, Galardi G, Ghilardi MF, Medaglini S, Canal N. Presence of carpal tunnel syndrome in diabetics: effect of age, sex, diabetes duration and polyneuropathy. Acta Diabetol Lat 1985; 22 (03) 259-262
• 14 Kouyoumdjian JA. Síndrome do túnel do carpo: aspectos clínico-epidemiológico em 668 casos. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 1999; 57 (02) 504-512
• 15 Becker J, Nora DB, Gomes I. et al. An evaluation of gender, obesity, age and diabetes mellitus as risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113 (09) 1429-1434
• 16 Bland JD. The relationship of obesity, age, and carpal tunnel syndrome: more complex than was thought?. Muscle Nerve 2005; 32 (04) 527-532
• 17 Spahn G, Wollny J, Hartmann B, Schiele R, Hofmann GO. [Metaanalysis for the evaluation of risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) Part I. General factors]. Z Orthop Unfall 2012; 150 (05) 503-515

Publication History

Received: 06 May 2020

Accepted: 16 September 2020

Article published online:
10 February 2021