AANEM Connect
Join this vibrant community of professionals eager to exchange ideas, share resources, and engage in meaningful discussions. Use this platform as a sounding board to seek advice for navigating challenging cases or career decisions, and receive expert guidance from generous peers who want to help you succeed.
Using standardized techniques and reference values from AANEM 2016 practice topic review
Question for those that use the AANEM 2016 standardized techniques and reference values. I have been using these since shortly after the practice topic review paper was released in 2016. However, the latency suggested as upper limit of normal (97th percentile) often will give calculated conduction velocities in the mid 30s when using the distances described. As an example, the median sensory nerve peak latency upper limit of normal is 4.0ms, but at 14cm distance, this gives a conduction velocity of only 35 m/s. I have had some astute refering hand surgeons ask me why the latency is normal (3.8) but the CV is not (36.8 m/s). I am not sure how to answer this, though I feel I should be able to. What do you all do in these situations? Do you use different latencies or conduction velocity cut offs? Any information and discussion would be much appreciated.
In order to comment on posts and view posts in their entirety, please login with your AANEM member account information.
I enjoy participating in the AANEM Connect Forum for a number of reasons. There are very fundamental questions posed on a frequent basis that cause me to pause and ask myself, ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ Also, I continue to learn new things when others contribute their thoughts and experiences. Connect is an excellent opportunity for members to interact and to address any topic, including those that may not be discussed at an annual meeting or journal article.
Daniel Dumitru, MD, PhD