Impairment Tutorial: Recurrent Radioculpathy: Recurrent Radioculpathy and Apportionment

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Disk Herniation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Recurrent Injury ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Spinal Region

Abstract Recurrent radiculopathy is evaluated by a different approach in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, compared to that in the Fourth Edition. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, specifies several occasions on which the range-of-motion (ROM), not the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method, is used to rate spinal impairments. For example, the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, clarifies that ROM is used only for radiculopathy caused by a recurrent injury, including when there is new (recurrent) disk herniation or a recurrent injury in the same spinal region. In the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, radiculopathy was rated using the Injury Model, which is termed the DRE method in the Fifth Edition. Also, in the Fourth Edition, for the lumbar spine all radiculopathies resulted in the same impairment (10% whole person permanent impairment), based on that edition's philosophy that radiculopathy is not quantifiable and, once present, is permanent. A rating of recurrent radiculopathy suggests the presence of a previous impairment rating and may require apportionment, which is the process of allocating causation among two or more factors that caused or significantly contributed to an injury and resulting impairment. A case example shows the divergent results following evaluation using the Injury Model (Fourth Edition) and the ROM Method (Fifth Edition) and concludes that revisions to the latter for rating permanent impairments of the spine often will lead to different results compared to using the Fourth Edition.

Literature Review: Disability Evaluation

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Disability Evaluation ◽  
Rating System ◽  
Primary Method ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
One Year ◽  
Injury Models

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Third Edition, exclusively used the Range of Motion (ROM) Model to rate motion of the spine. The fourth edition requires the additional use of an inclinometer and also indicates that the Injury Model is the primary method for evaluating the spine; the ROM Model can be used as the differentiator or tie breaker. The ROM and the Injury Models cannot be used interchangeably, and the final rating always should be based on the Injury Model, not the ROM Model. One of the goals of changing the evaluation method is to create a more reproducible rating system. Because the Injury Model uses only objective findings present at the time of examination or found in the record, it is more reproducible. A further difference between the Injury and ROM Models is that in the former the examining physician rates the results of the injury, not the results of the treatment. The AMA Guides also requires that the patient's condition be stable—ie, not likely to change for one year. In the spine, the results of the injury, not the treatment, are rated, and often this can be done within several days of the injury.

Common Tips for IMEs: Musculoskeletal Conversions: Musculoskeletal Conversions

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Middle Finger ◽  
Conversion Factors ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
Hand Impairment ◽  
Little Finger

Abstract Most impairments are expressed ultimately as a whole person impairment, and the musculoskeletal chapters of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) include instructions for converting regional impairments to whole person impairments using a percentage relationship. This article presents an extensive table that incorporates the conversion factors for extremity and spinal impairments. Occasionally evaluators need to convert spinal impairments from whole person to impairment of the spine, a process that is explained in the AMA Guides, Section 15.13. The conversion factors differ depending on whether the impairment was obtained using the Diagnosis-related estimate (DRE) method or the range-of-motion (ROM) method. For example, a 5% whole person impairment is an 8% upper extremity impairment, a 9% hand impairment, 23% thumb impairment, 46% index/middle finger impairment, or 93% ring/little finger impairment. The same 5% whole person impairment would convert to a cervical spine impairment of 14% cervical spine if the DRE method were used and 6% if the ROM method were used. For the lumbar spine, this would convert to 7% lumbar spine impairment if the DRE method were used and 6% if the ROM method were used. The table in this article provides values for converting foot to lower extremity impairment and for converting whole person impairment to regional spinal impairment.

Impairment Tutorial: Rating Permanent Impairment for Artificial Disc Replacements

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Artificial Disc ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Spinal Region ◽  
Loss Of Motion

Abstract In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an artificial disc replacement (ADR), and physicians likely will be called on to evaluate permanent impairment in some patients who have been treated using an ADR. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in 2000, before the approval of ADRs, and thus is silent about evaluating ADR-associated impairment. FDA based its approval on the results of a study in which the indications were tightly limited and for which the list of relative contraindications was quite long. One review of 100 consecutive lumbar spine surgery patients found that 95% had at least 1 contraindication to ADR. The AMA Guides recommends using the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method, but some situations (eg, multilevel involvement in the same spinal region) warrant use of the range-of-motion (ROM) method. Assuming a single injury and one level of loss of the activities of daily living, the DRE is the correct method to rate the permanent impairment, and the authors recommend that ADR be accepted as the equivalent to loss of motion segment integrity, warranting a rating from CRE Category IV. ADR is in its infancy, and until the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, is available, evaluators can rate one level ADR from DRE Category IV.

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part III

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Douglas Van Zet ◽  
Debra J. Northrup ◽  
Edward B. Whitney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
The State ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Functional Loss ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article concludes the three-part discussion of differences among the editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides): Third Edition Revised, Fourth, and Fifth Editions. The discussion begins with a comparison of different editions of the AMA Guides for evaluating lower extremity impairment and spinal impairment. The AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, introduced the Diagnosis related estimates (DRE) model, and in this edition the range-of-motion (ROM) model has only a limited role (ie, primarily as a differentiator). A table summarizes the criteria of spinal impairment criteria by edition of the AMA Guides. The authors summarize differences in the impairment ratings of various body systems based on the use of different editions of the AMA Guides, including differences in ratings of the cardiovascular, pulmonary, digestive, and other systems. Critiquing the AMA Guides, the authors call for improvements, including the following: add a system to rate permanent impairments, including functional limitations; base impairment ratings on scientific evidence and a valid whole person impairment scale; make the AMA Guides reliable, comprehensive, internally consistent, comprehensible, accessible (ie, the AMA Guides are complex and difficult to use, and not all physicians are capable of rating impairment), and acceptable. Despite the shortcomings, no other widely accepted basis to assess impairment is available, and future editions of the AMA Guides will improve the process of providing fair assessments of functional loss.

Rating Post-Operative Backs (Part I)

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Foot Drop ◽  
Neurogenic Claudication ◽  
Root Damage ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Minor Strain ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Strain Type ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Anterior Tibialis

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, uses the Injury Model to rate impairment in people who have experienced back injuries. Injured individuals who have not required surgery can be rated using differentiators. Challenges arise when assessing patients whose injuries have been treated surgically before the patient is rated for impairment. This article discusses five of the most common situations: 1) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has had an injury resulting in sciatica and who has been treated surgically, either with chemonucleolysis or with discectomy? 2) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has a back strain and is operated on without reasonable indications? 3) What is the impairment rating of an individual with sciatica and a foot drop (major anterior tibialis weakness) from L5 root damage? 4) What is the rating for an individual who is injured, has true radiculopathy, undergoes a discectomy, and is rated as Category III but later has another injury and, ultimately, a second disc operation? 5) What is the impairment rating for an older individual who was asymptomatic until a minor strain-type injury but subsequently has neurogenic claudication with severe surgical spinal stenosis on MRI/myelography? [Continued in the September/October 1997 The Guides Newsletter]

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

scholarly journals A Scoring System for Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Ossification of the Lumbar Spine in Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis: Relationship Between the Extent of Ligament Ossification and the Range of Motion

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822199668
Author(s):  
Yusuke Murakami ◽  
Tadao Morino ◽  
Masayuki Hino ◽  
Hiroshi Misaki ◽  
Hiroshi Imai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Intervertebral Disc ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Scoring System ◽  
Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Canal Stenosis ◽  
Intervertebral Disc Height ◽  
The Relationship

Study Design: Retrospective observational study. Objective: To investigate the relationship between the extent of ligament ossification and the range of motion (ROM) of the lumbar spine and develop a new scoring system. Methods: Forty-three patients (30 men and 13 women) with lumbar spinal canal stenosis who underwent decompression from January to December 2018. Ligament ossification at L1/2 to L5/S was assessed on plain X-ray (Xp) and computed tomography (CT) using a modified Mata scoring system (0 point: no ossification, 1 point: ossification of less than half of the intervertebral disc height, 2 points: ossification of half or more of the intervertebral disc height, 3 points: complete bridging), and the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the scoring was assessed. The relationship of the scores with postoperative lumbar ROM was investigated. Result: Intra-rater reliability was high (Cronbach’s α was 0.74 for L5/S on Xp but 0.8 or above for other sections), as was inter-rater reliability (Cronbach’s α was 0.8 or above for all the segments). ROM significantly decreased as the score increased (scores 1 to 2, and 2 to 3). A significant moderate negative correlation was found between the sum of the scores at L1/2-L5/S and the ROM at L1-S (ρ = − 0.4493, P = 0.025). Conclusion: Our scoring system reflects lumbar mobility and is reproducible. It is effective for assessing DISH in fractures and spinal conditions, and monitoring effects on treatment outcomes and changes over time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document