PDF herunterladen
J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31(08): 607-613
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1556062
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Selecting a Test for Leprous Neuropathy Screening

Pablo A. Baltodano
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Eric L. Wan
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Jonathan Noboa
2   Father Damien House, Guayaquil, Ecuador
,
Gedge D. Rosson
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
,
A. Lee Dellon
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

13. März 2015

10. Mai 2015

Publikationsdatum:
28. Juli 2015 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Worldwide, leprosy represents a significant cause of disability due to progressive neurological impairment. Screening for leprous neuropathy is performed with Semmes–Weinstein monofilament (SWM) or ballpoint pen testing (BPT), which results in underreporting of its prevalence. The Pressure-specified sensory device (PSSD; Sensory Management Services, LLC, Baltimore, MD) is a sensitive, noninvasive, portable, neurosensory instrument, which has not been field-tested for leprosy screening. Early identification of leprous neuropathy would permit early antibiotic treatment to prevent contagion and early microsurgical neurolysis.

Methods A prospective, clinical diagnostic, cross-sectional study screened a consecutive sample of patients for leprous neuropathy in the leprosy-endemic province of Los Ríos, Ecuador. Patients meeting the World Health Organization criteria for leprosy and complaining of neuropathy symptoms were classified as leprous neuropathy patients. Patients without any signs of leprosy were used as normal controls. Bilateral ulnar nerve screening with the PSSD, SWM (0.07, 0.4, 2, 4, 10, and 300 g), and BPT was performed in all patients. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared across tests. A total of 71 patients (142 nerves) were evaluated.

Results Compared with the 10 g SWM and the BPT, the PSSD was found to have significantly higher sensitivity (78.3 vs. 0% with p < 0.001, for both) with comparable specificity (97.8 vs. 100% with p > 0.999, for both). Compared with the 0.07 g SWM (lightest filament in our series), the PSSD showed better sensitivity (78.3 vs. 65.2%, p = 0.514) and significantly higher specificity (97.8 vs. 51.1%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions The PSSD provides superior diagnostic accuracy for detecting leprous neuropathy as compared with SWM and BPT.

Keywords

leprous neuropathy - Semmes–Weinstein filaments - Pressure-Specified Sensory Device
 

  • References

  • 1 World Health Organization. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2009; 2012 (34) 317-328
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wilder-Smith EP, Van Brakel WH. Nerve damage in leprosy and its management. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2008; 4 (12) 656-663
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van Brakel WH, Nicholls PG, Wilder-Smith EP, Das L, Barkataki P, Lockwood DN ; INFIR Study Group. Early diagnosis of neuropathy in leprosy—comparing diagnostic tests in a large prospective study (the INFIR cohort study). PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2008; 2 (4) e212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schreuder PA. The occurrence of reactions and impairments in leprosy: experience in the leprosy control program of three provinces in northeastern Thailand, 1987-1995 [correction of 1978-1995]. III. Neural and other impairments. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis 1998; 66 (2) 170-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Saunderson P, Gebre S, Desta K, Byass P, Lockwood DN. The pattern of leprosy-related neuropathy in the AMFES patients in Ethiopia: definitions, incidence, risk factors and outcome. Lepr Rev 2000; 71 (3) 285-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Croft RP, Richardus JH, Nicholls PG, Smith WC. Nerve function impairment in leprosy: design, methodology, and intake status of a prospective cohort study of 2664 new leprosy cases in Bangladesh (The Bangladesh Acute Nerve Damage Study). Lepr Rev 1999; 70 (2) 140-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Report of the International Leprosy Association Technical Forum. Report of the International Leprosy Association Technical Forum. Paris, France, 22-28 February 2002. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis 2002; 70 (1, Suppl): S1-S62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Villarroel MF, Orsini MB, Lima RC, Antunes CM. Comparative study of the cutaneous sensation of leprosy-suspected lesions using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments and quantitative thermal testing. Lepr Rev 2007; 78 (2) 102-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van Brakel WH, Shute J, Dixon JA, Arzet H. Evaluation of sensibility in leprosy—comparison of various clinical methods. Lepr Rev 1994; 65 (2) 106-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Koelewijn LF, Meima A, Broekhuis SM , et al. Sensory testing in leprosy: comparison of ballpoint pen and monofilaments. Lepr Rev 2003; 74 (1) 42-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khambati FA, Shetty VP, Ghate SD, Capadia GD. Sensitivity and specificity of nerve palpation, monofilament testing and voluntary muscle testing in detecting peripheral nerve abnormality, using nerve conduction studies as gold standard; a study in 357 patients. Lepr Rev 2009; 80 (1) 34-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Watson JM, Lehman LF, Schreuder PA, Van Brakel WH. Ballpoint pen testing: light touch versus deep pressure. Lepr Rev 2002; 73 (4) 392-393
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Anderson AM, Croft RP. Reliability of Semmes Weinstein monofilament and ballpoint sensory testing, and voluntary muscle testing in Bangladesh. Lepr Rev 1999; 70 (3) 305-313
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Rijk AJ, Byass P. Field comparison of 10-g and 1-g filaments for the sensory testing of hands in Ethiopian leprosy patients. Lepr Rev 1994; 65 (4) 333-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lienhardt C, Currie H, Wheeler JG. Inter-observer variability in the assessment of nerve function in leprosy patients in Ethiopia. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis 1995; 63 (1) 62-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Weber RA, Schuchmann JA, Albers JH, Ortiz J. A prospective blinded evaluation of nerve conduction velocity versus Pressure-Specified Sensory Testing in carpal tunnel syndrome. Ann Plast Surg 2000; 45 (3) 252-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fogaça WC, Fereirra MC, Dellon AL. Infraorbital nerve injury associated with zygoma fractures: documentation with neurosensory testing. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (3) 834-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ferreira MC, Rodrigues L, Fels K. New method for evaluation of cutaneous sensibility in diabetic feet: preliminary report. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo 2004; 59 (5) 286-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wood WA, Wood MA, Werter SA , et al. Testing for loss of protective sensation in patients with foot ulceration: a cross-sectional study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2005; 95 (5) 469-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fels KW, Cunha MS, Sturtz GP, Gemperli R, Ferreira MC. Evaluation of cutaneous abdominal wall sensibility after abdominoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2005; 29 (2) 78-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Coltro PS, Alves HRN, Gallafrio ST, Busnardo FF, Ferreira MC. Sensibility of the ear after otoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (2) 120-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mofid MM, Dellon AL, Elias JJ, Nahabedian MY. Quantitation of breast sensibility following reduction mammaplasty: a comparison of inferior and medial pedicle techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (7) 2283-2288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dellon AL, Keller KM. Computer-assisted quantitative sensorimotor testing in patients with carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38 (5) 493-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tassler PL, Dellon AL. Pressure perception in the normal lower extremity and in the tarsal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1996; 19 (3) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tassler PL, Dellon AL. Correlation of measurements of pressure perception using the pressure-specified sensory device with electrodiagnostic testing. J Occup Environ Med 1995; 37 (7) 862-866
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dellon ES, Keller KM, Moratz V, Dellon AL. Validation of cutaneous pressure threshold measurements for the evaluation of hand function. Ann Plast Surg 1997; 38 (5) 485-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Seiler DK, Wilton J, Dellon AL. Detection of neuropathy due to Mycobacterium leprae using noninvasive neurosensory testing of susceptible peripheral nerves. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 55 (6) 633-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE , et al; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD initiative. Am J Clin Pathol 2003; 119 (1) 18-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 World Health Organization. WHO Expert Committee on Leprosy. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2012; 968 (968) 1-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Shepard CC. Temperature optimum of Mycobacterium leprae in mice. J Bacteriol 1965; 90 (5) 1271-1275
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dellon AL. Clinical grading of peripheral nerve problems. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2001; 12 (2) 229-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Roberts AE, Nicholls PG, Maddali P, Van Brakel WH. Ensuring inter-tester reliability of voluntary muscle and monofilament sensory testing in the INFIR Cohort Study. Lepr Rev 2007; 78 (2) 122-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 van Brakel WH, Khawas IB, Gurung KS, Kets CM, van Leerdam ME, Drever W. Intra- and inter-tester reliability of sensibility testing in leprosy. Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis 1996; 64 (3) 287-298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Van Veen NHJ, Meima A, Richardus JH. The relationship between detection delay and impairment in leprosy control: a comparison of patient cohorts from Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Lepr Rev 2006; 77 (4) 356-365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Meima A, Saunderson PR, Gebre S, Desta K, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Factors associated with impairments in new leprosy patients: the AMFES cohort. Lepr Rev 1999; 70 (2) 189-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nicholls PG, Croft RP, Richardus JH, Withington SG, Smith WC. Delay in presentation, an indicator for nerve function status at registration and for treatment outcome—the experience of the Bangladesh Acute Nerve Damage Study cohort. Lepr Rev 2003; 74 (4) 349-356
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lockwood DN, Reid AJ. The diagnosis of leprosy is delayed in the United Kingdom. QJM 2001; 94 (4) 207-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar