Upper limb neurodynamic testing with radial and ulnar nerve biases: An analysis of cervical spinal nerve mechanics.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research supports a combination of upper limb neurodynamic testing (ULNT) strategies to rule out upper limb and cervical neurogenic pathology; however, knowledge of the biomechanical response of spinal nerves during ULNT is lacking for radial and ulnar nerve biases. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether radial and ulnar nerve biased strategies of ULNT elicit significant displacement and strain of cervical spinal nerves. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Radiolucent markers were implanted into spinal nerves C5-C8 proximal and distal to the intervertebral foramen in nine unembalmed cadavers (six male; three female) age 80.1 ± 13.2 years. Fluoroscopic images were captured during ULNT with radial and ulnar nerve biases. Images at rest and maximum tension were digitized and displacement and strain were measured. All data were analyzed using one sample t-tests and a generalized linear mixed models approach. RESULTS: Upper limb neurodynamic testing with radial nerve bias resulted in displacement (2.44-3.04 mm) and strain (7.99-11.98%) and ULNT with ulnar nerve bias resulted in displacement (2.16-4.41 mm) and strain (7.12 and 12.95%). Significant extraforaminal displacement occurred during radial and ulnar nerve biases for all spinal nerves (all P < 0.05) whereas significant strain occurred during ulnar nerve biases for all spinal nerves but only in C6-C8 during radial nerve bias. CONCLUSION: Upper limb neurodynamic testing using both radial and ulnar nerve biases resulted in cervical spinal nerve displacement and strain. Such techniques could be used to tension load or mobilize or cervical spinal nerves to evaluate for pathology.

Is State Anxiety, Trait Anxiety, or Anxiety Sensitivity a Clinical Predictor of Symptoms in Those Presenting With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury or Concussion?

Clinical Scenario: Mild traumatic brain injury, or concussion, has been associated with physical, cognitive, and emotional sequelae. Little is understood in regard to many characteristics, such as anxiety, and their effect on post-concussion symptoms. CLINICAL QUESTION: Is state anxiety, trait anxiety, or anxiety sensitivity a clinical predictor of symptoms in those presenting with mild traumatic brain injury or concussion? Summary of Key Findings: A literature search returned 3 possible studies; 3 studies met inclusion criteria and included. One study reported in athletes that greater social support was associated with decreased state-anxiety, lower state anxiety post-concussion was associated with increased social support, and that those with greater social support may experience reduced anxiety, regardless of injury type sustained. One study reported baseline trait anxiety in athletes was not significantly associated with post-concussion state anxiety, but that symptoms of depression at baseline was the strongest predictor for post-concussion state anxiety. Three studies reported that state and trait anxiety are not related to increased post-concussion symptom scores. One study reported that greater anxiety sensitivity is related to higher reported post-concussion symptom scores, which may manifest as somatic symptoms following concussion, and revealed that anxiety sensitivity may be a risk factor symptom development. Clinical Bottom Line: There is low-level to moderate evidence to support that anxiety sensitivity is linked to post-concussion symptoms. State and trait anxiety do not appear to be related to post-concussion symptoms alone. Post-concussion state anxiety may occur if post-concussion symptoms of depression are present or if baseline symptoms of depression are present. Better social support may improve state anxiety post-concussion. Strength of Recommendation: There is grade B evidence to support that state and trait anxiety are not risk factors for post-concussion symptom development. There is grade C evidence to support anxiety sensitivity as a risk factor for developing post-concussion symptoms.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Diagnostic Tests for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

Clinical Scenario: Thoracic outlet syndrome is quite challenging to diagnose. Currently, there are myriad diagnostic procedures used in the diagnosis of all types of thoracic outlet syndrome. However, controversy exists over which diagnostic procedures produce accurate findings. CLINICAL QUESTION: Can clinical diagnostic tests accurately diagnose patients presenting with symptoms of thoracic outlet syndrome? Summary of Key Findings: A thorough literature search returned 6 possible studies; 3 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Two studies supported the use of clinical diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome. One study reported high false-positive rates among clinical diagnostic tests for thoracic outlet syndrome. One study reported that clinical diagnostic test findings correlate to provocative positioned magnetic resonance imaging findings. Clinical Bottom Line: There is moderate evidence to support the use of the Halstead maneuver (also known as the costoclavicular maneuver or exaggerated military brace test), Wright's test, Cyriax Release test, and supraclavicular pressure test to have good diagnostic accuracy for the provocation of symptoms in patients presenting with upper extremity pathology. However, these clinical diagnostic tests do not appear to allow for the differential diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome exclusively. The use of the Adson's test and Roos test should be discontinued for the differential diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B evidence exists to support the accuracy of the Halstead maneuver, Wright's test, Cyriax Release test, and supraclavicular pressure test for the diagnosis of upper extremity pathology in general. Grade C evidence exists for the use of these clinical diagnostic tests to exclusively diagnose thoracic outlet syndrome.