Advertisement

Douleur et Analgésie

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 73–78 | Cite as

La place du Test de discrimination de 2 points statiques dans l’examen clinique

  • C. J. Spicher
  • E. Hecker
  • E. Thommen
  • E. M. Rouiller
Article

Résumé

L’historique du test de discrimination de deux points statiques et la controverse qui en a découlé est présenté. La passation de ce test est reconsidérée sur la base des études antérieures, d’un examen des critiques émises et sur notre propre expérience. L’apparente simplicité de ce test est décrite d’une manière détaillée: finalité, but, matériel, passation, résultat et interprétation. En particulier, la passation est présentée pour l’examen clinique en cabinet: position, territoire à tester, type de stimulation, explications au patient, recherche de la distance de référence et le test quantitatif lui-même. Les perspectives du test de dicrimination de deux points statiques lors de l’examen neurologique sont discutées. Une liste des précautions à prendre pour garantir la validité et la fidélité de ce test sont énumérées.

Mots-clés

Discrimination tact sensitive test somesthésie 

Summary

The history of the static two-point discrimination test from 1835 till today is presented. The controversy associated to the qualities of the test is described. The standardization of this test is reconsidered on the basis of former study, of a criticism’s examination emitted and on our own experience. Before determining the quality of a hypoesthesia, it is necessary to determine its localization. Then the stimulating points are applied simultaneously on the skin, respecting a 10 seconds interval between the questions, allowing to establish a reference distance until the patient does not answer instantaneously any more but starts to take time to answer. Finally, the test is refined with quantitative assessment in the vicinity of the distance of reference with a repeated questioning and random, with the right to the error. The apparent simplicity of this test is described in a detailed way: Finality, Purpose, Material, Passation, Result and Interpretation. In particular, the passation is presented for the clinical examination: Position, Territory to be tested, Type of stimulation, Explanations to the patient, Establishment of the reference distance, and The test itself. The prospects for the static two-point discrimination test at the time of the neurological examination are discussed. A list of the precautions to take to guarantee the validity and the fidelity of this test are enumerated. The word of the end is given to EH Weber which had already transmitted us all the ingredients to use his test adequately.

Key-words

Discrimination vibrotactile sensitivity test somatosensory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. 1.
    Spicher C, Degrange B. Somatosensory Rehabilitation Centre’s Statistics. e-News for Somatosensory Rehabilitation 2, 33-4. http://www.unifr.ch/neuro/rouiller/Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spicher C. Manuel de rééducation sensitive du corps humain. Genève, Paris: Médecine & Hygiène, 2003a.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell-Krotoski J, Buford WL. The force/time relationship of clinically used testing instruments. J Hand Ther 1997; 10: 297–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lundborg G, Rosen B. The two-point discrimination test—time for a re-appraisal? J Hand Surg (Br) 2004; 29: 418–22.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jerosch-Herold C. A study of the relative responsiveness of five sensibility tests for assessment of recovery after median nerve injury and repair. J Hand Surg (Br) 2003; 28: 255–60.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber EH. Ueber den Tatsinn, Archiv für Anatomie Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medizin. Berlin: Medical Müller’s Archives, 1835; 152–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moberg E. Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. J Bone Joint and Surg 1958; 40B: 454–76.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Létiévant E. Traité des sections nerveuses: physiologie pathologique, indications—procédés opératoires. Paris: JB Baillère, 1873.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Létiévant E. (1876). Esthésiographie. In Compte rendu de la 4e session de Nantes en 1875, pp. 1037–43. Association française pour l’avancement des sciences, secrétariat de l’association, 76, rue de Rennes. Paris.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Head H, Rivers WHR, Sherren J. The afferent nervous system from a new aspect. Brain 1905; 28: 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moberg E. Criticism and study of methods for examining sensibility in the hand. Neurology 1962; 12: 8–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dellon AL, Kallman CH. Evaluation of functional sensation in the hand. J Hand Surg 1983; 8: 865–70Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dellon AL. The moving two-point discrimination test: Clinical evaluation of the quickly adapting fiber/receptor system. J Hand Surg 1978; 3: 474–81.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bell-Krotoski JA: Advances in Sensibility Evaluation. Hand Clinics 1991; 7: 527–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dellon ES, Moury R, Dellon AL. Human Pressure Perception Values for constant and moving One- and Two-Point Discrimination. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1992; 90: 112–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Novak CB. Evaluation of Hand Sensibility: A Review. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 266–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dellon AL. Somatosensory testing and rehabilitation. Baltimore: The institute for peripheral nerve surgery, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mackinnon SE, Novak CB. Thoracic outlet syndrome. Curr Probl Surg 2002; 39: 1070–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Inbal R, Rousso M, Ashur H, et al. Collateral sprouting in skin and sensory recovery after nerve injury. Pain 1987; 28: 141–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Novak CB, Mackinnon SE, Kelly L. Correlation of Two-Point Discrimination and Hand Function Following Median Nerve Injury. Ann Plast Surg 1993; 31: 495–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spicher C, Kohut G. Une augmentation importante de la sensibilité superficielle, de nombreuses années après une lésion périphérique, par stimulation vibratoire transcutanée. Ann Chir Main 1997; 16: 124–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDougall W. Cutaneous Sensations. Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological expedition to Torres Strait, Cambridge, vol. II, part 2: 1903, 189–95.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Önne L. Recovery of sensibility and sudomotor activity in the hand after nerve suture. Acta Chir Scand 1962; (Suppl. 300): 1–69.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tubiana R, Thomine JM. La main: anatomie fonctionnelle et exament clinique. Paris: Masson, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Comtet JJ. La sensibilité, examen, principes de la rééducation de la sensation. Ann Chir Main 1987; 6: 230–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bell-Krotoski JA. Sensibility testing: State of the art. In Hunter JM, Schneider LH, Mackin EJ, et al. (eds.), Rehabilitation of the Hand. 3e ed., Co. St-Louis: C.V. Mosby. 1990; 575–84.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spicher C. La rééducation sensitive du corps humain. In Izard MH, Kalfat H, Nespoulous R (eds.), Recherche et expériences en ergothérapie. 16e série. Montpellier: Sauramps médical, 2003b; 73–83.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Létiévant E. Phénomènes physiologiques et pathologiques consécutifs à la section des nerfs du bras. Lyon médical 1869; 3: 150–64, 225–43, 298–320, planches I à VI.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tinel J. Les blessures de nerfs. Paris: Masson, 1916.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spicher C, Haggenjos L, Noël L, et al. Cartographier un territoire hypoesthésique, n’est pas rechercher le seuil de perception à la pression (SPP). In Izard MH, Kalfat H, Nespoulous R (eds.), Expériences en ergothérapie. 17e série. Montpellier: Sauramps médical, 2004; 161–6.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spicher C, Kohut G. Jean Joseph Létiévant: A Review of His Contributions to Surgery and Rehabilitation. Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery 2001; 17: 169–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber EH. Ueber den Raumsinn und die Empfindungskreise in der Haut und die Auge. Bericht über die Verhandlungen der k. sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft. Mathematisch—physikalische Klassen, 1852; C1: 85–164.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marsh D. The validation of measures of outcome following suture of divided peripheral nerves supplying the hand. Journal of Hand surgery (British Volume) 1990; 15B: 25–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malenfant A, Forget R, Amsel R, et al. Tactile, thermal and pain sensibility in burned patients with and without chronic pain and paresthesia problems. Pain 1988; 77: 241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber HL. Somatosensory changes after penetrating brain wounds in man. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dellon AL. Evaluation of Sensibility and Re-education of Sensation in the Hand (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1988.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fuchs JL, Brown PB. Two-Point Discriminability: Relation to Properties of the Somatosensory System. Somatosensory Research 1984; 2: 163–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bell-Krotoski JA. Sensibility testing: Current concepts. In Hunter JM, Schneider LH, Mackin EJ, et al. (eds.), Rehabilitation of the Hand. 4e ed. St-Louis: C.V. Mosby. Co, 1995; 109–28.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE, Crosby PM. Reliability of two-point discrimination measurements. J Hand Surg 1987; 12A: 693–6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zachary RB. Results of nerve suture. In Seddon HJ (ed.), Peripheral Nerve Injuries. Medical Research Council Special Report Series no 282, pp. 354–88. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1954.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zachary RB, Holmes W. Primary suture of nerves. Surg. Gynecol, Obstet 1946; 83: 632–51.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Spicher C, Kohut G, Miauton J. At which stage of sensory recovery can a tingling sign be expected? A review and proposal for standardization and grading. Journal of Hand Therapy 1999; 1: 298–308.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prince von K, Butler B. Measuring sensory function of the hand in peripheral nerve injuries. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1967; 21: 385–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. J. Spicher
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Hecker
    • 3
  • E. Thommen
    • 4
  • E. M. Rouiller
    • 5
  1. 1.Collaborateur scientifique, ergothérapeute (OT) et rééducateur de la main certifié (Swiss CHT)Unité de physiologieFribourg
  2. 2.Département de médecineUniversité de Fribourg. Centre de rééducation sensitive du corps humainFribourg
  3. 3.Neurologue, médecin agréé (MD), Service de neurologieHôpital cantonalFribourg
  4. 4.Docteur en psychologie (PhD), Ecole d’études sociales et pédagogiquesHaute Ecole Santé-SocialeLausanne
  5. 5.Docteur en sciences (PhD), Unité de physiologie, Département de médecineUniversité de FribourgFribourg

Personalised recommendations