This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Dae-Joo Kim, MD; Stanley F. Wainapel, MD; Anathalal Kalantri, MD; Sikha Guha, MD
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center 111 E 210th St New York, NY 10467

Arch Neurol. 1982;39(1):67-68.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

Dr Radoff's concerns about the accuracy and reproducibility of our conduction technique are understandable. Regarding the location of the recording electrode, this is standardized at 3 cm proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joint of the fifth finger; however, hands will, of course, vary in size, making the actual anatomical location of the recording electrode slightly different. Regarding the location of the site of stimulation, the 2- to 3-cm variability of location is to some extent unavoidable, since the dorsal cutaneous branch of the ulnar nerve arises at a variable distance proximal to the ulnar styloid process.¹

The lack of an absolutely constant interelectrode distance does make for a greater degree of inaccuracy when comparing latency values; therefore, we would place greater value on conduction velocity values, as well as the presence or absence of a recordable nerve action potential. We would also stress the necessity of very careful measurement of the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?