Neurology®
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed Neurology journal
Quick Search
Advanced Search
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the course for this article:
 Volume 72, Number 5, February 3, 2009
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Young, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Daube, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Young, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Daube, J. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow MRI
Right arrow Ultrasound
Right arrow Peripheral neuropathy
Right arrow Neuropathic pain
Right arrow EMG
NEUROLOGY 2009;72:447-452
© 2009 American Academy of Neurology

Clinical and electrodiagnostic correlates of peroneal intraneural ganglia

Nathan P. Young, DO, Eric J. Sorenson, MD, Robert J. Spinner, MD and Jasper R. Daube, MD

From the Departments of Neurology (N.P.Y., E.J.S., J.R.D.) and Neurosurgery (R.J.S.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Nathan Young, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905 young.nathan{at}mayo.edu

Objective: Intraneural ganglia (IG) are an underappreciated but treatable cause of common peroneal neuropathy (CPN). This study was designed to determine if there are clinical measures that distinguish CPN caused by IG from CPN without a clear proximate cause.

Methods: Clinical and electrodiagnostic features of 22 cases of IG were compared in a case-control study to 11 cases of CPN with imaging negative for IG.

Results: The IG group had a greater body mass index (30 vs 24; p < 0.005), more pain at the knee (52% of 22 vs 0% of 11; p < 0.005) or in the peroneal distribution (76% of 21 vs 27% of 1; p < 0.02), more frequent fluctuating weakness (48% of 21 vs 4% of 29; p < 0.01) with weight bearing (38%, p < 0.05), or a palpable mass (47% of 20, p < 0.01) at the fibular head. The IG group was less likely to present with a history of weight loss (0% vs 36%; p < 0.01), immobility (0% vs 21%; p < 0.03), or leg crossing (0% vs 80%; p < 0.05). There were no significant electrophysiologic differences.

Conclusions: Presenting clinical features increase the likelihood of intraneural ganglia and may assist selection of patients with common peroneal neuropathy for diagnostic peroneal nerve imaging.

Abbreviations: AFO = ankle-foot orthosis; BMI = body mass index; CMAP = compound muscle action potential; CPN = common peroneal neuropathy; EDB = extensor digitorum brevis; IG = intraneural ganglia; NCS = nerve conduction study; PL = peroneus longus; TA = tibialis anterior.

Disclosure: The authors report no disclosures.

Received August 18, 2008. Accepted in final form October 24, 2008.