Maida, Eugene

Objectives To determine the ability to sonographically identify the posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm (PCNF) and its distal epicondylar branches using sonographically guided perineural injections in an unembalmed cadaveric model. Methods A single experienced operator used a 12–3‐MHz linear array transducer to identify the PCNF and its distal epicondylar region branches in 10 unembalmed cadaveric specimens (6 right and 4 left) obtained from 10 donors. Sonographically guided perineural PCNF injections were then completed with a 22‐gauge, 38‐mm stainless steel needle to deliver 0.25 mL of 50% diluted colored latex at 3 points along the PCNF. The latex location was then confirmed via dissection. Results The 10 donors included 4 male and 6 female cadavers aged 48 to 94 years (mean, 73 years) with body mass indices of 19 to 37 kg/m 2 (mean, 26 kg/m 2 ). The operator sonographically identified the PCNF and several distal branches traversing over or directly adjacent to the lateral epicondyle in all 10 specimens. Only 7 of 10 specimens showed a distinct PCNF bifurcation into anterior and posterior divisions, and all 7 were accurately identified and localized on sonography. There was no evidence of latex overflow to clinically relevant adjacent structures or injury to regional vessels or nerves. Conclusions High‐resolution sonography can identify the PCNF and its distal epicondylar branches. Sonographic evaluation of the PCNF should be included in the evaluation of patients presenting with refractory or atypical lateral elbow pain syndromes. Diagnostic and therapeutic sonographically guided procedures targeting the PCNF or its lateral epicondylar branches are feasible and warrant further investigation.

ABSTRACTIntroduction: The primary aim of this investigation was to determine whether use of write‐zoom magnification affects sonographically determined cross‐sectional area (CSA) of peripheral nerves. Methods: CSAs of the median (MN) and posterior interosseous (PIN) nerves were measured in 22 limbs from 11 asymptomatic volunteers using both standard imaging and write‐zoom magnification. CSA measurements were repeated on the same images 1 week later. Results: The average CSA of write‐zoomed images for the MN was significantly larger at both measurement sessions (week 1: 11.1 mm2 write‐zoom vs. 10.0 mm2 standard, P = 0.019; week 2: 11.8 mm2 vs. 10.4 mm2, P = 0.023). Similar differences were noted for the PIN (week 1: 2.3 mm2 vs. 1.9 mm2, P = 0.002; week 2: 2.5 mm2 vs. 1.9 mm2, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Write‐zoom magnification may significantly increase the measured CSA of peripheral nerves. These changes appear to be more substantial when smaller nerves are measured. Muscle Nerve 51: 30–34, 2015