Continuous Scanning and Inching in Ultrasonographic Localisation of Ulnar Neuropathy: A Comparative Study of...

Background: This study compares the sensitivity of continuous ultrasonographic scanning and ultrasonographic inching in the localisation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow to diagnose the two common entrapment sites: retroepicondylar groove and cubital tunnel. Methods: The charts of 30 patients who were diagnosed with ulnar neuropathy of the elbow and underwent ultrasonographic examinations using the inching and the continuous technique between April 2015 and September 2019 were reviewed. Sensitivities of ultrasonographic inching and continuous scanning were compared. Results: A total of 34 elbows from 30 patients were examined. The sensitivities of continuous ultrasonographic scanning method and ultrasonographic inching were 85% and 71%, respectively, but this was not significant (p = 0.06). The maximum cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in continuous scanning were mainly found within the area from the medial epicondyle to the 2-cm distal point in the cubital tunnel entrapment, while a majority of the largest CSAs in ultrasonographic inching was observed at the medial epicondyle level in both entrapment sites. The mean of the maximum CSAs in continuous scanning (17.04 ± 6.75 mm²) was higher than that in ultrasonographic inching (14.13 ± 6.63 mm²), although this difference remained non-significant (p = 0.08). However, continuous scanning differed more significantly (p < 0.0001) from the cut-off value than the ultrasonographic inching (p < 0.0066). Conclusions: Continuous scanning might be more suitable than ultrasonographic inching to localise ulnar neuropathy, which inherently has variations in the cubital tunnel anatomy and its entrapment points, when selecting optimal treatment based on the entrapment site. Level of Evidence: Level III (Diagnostic).