Otolaryngic sensory loss as a measure of frailty among older US adults

Author(s):  
Nanki Hura ◽  
Isaac A. Bernstein ◽  
Leila J. Mady ◽  
Yuri Agrawal ◽  
Andrew P. Lane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-3
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) describes procedures for rating upper extremity neural deficits in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k; Chapter 4, The Nervous System, section 4.4 provides additional information and an example. The AMA Guides also divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain within the former. The impairment estimates take into account typical manifestations such as limited motion, atrophy, and reflex, trophic, and vasomotor deficits. Lesions of the peripheral nervous system may result in diminished sensation (anesthesia or hypesthesia), abnormal sensation (dysesthesia or paresthesia), or increased sensation (hyperesthesia). Lesions of motor nerves can result in weakness or paralysis of the muscles innervated. Spinal nerve deficits are identified by sensory loss or pain in the dermatome or weakness in the myotome supplied. The steps in estimating brachial plexus impairment are similar to those for spinal and peripheral nerves. Evaluators should take care not to rate the same impairment twice, eg, rating weakness resulting from a peripheral nerve injury and the joss of joint motion due to that weakness.


1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz ◽  
Sankar Perraraju

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, offers several categories to describe impairment in the shoulder, including shoulder amputation, abnormal shoulder motion, peripheral nerve disorders, subluxation/dislocation, and joint arthroplasty. This article clarifies appropriate methods for rating shoulder impairment in a specific patient, particularly with reference to the AMA Guides, Section 3.1j, Shoulder, Section 3.1k, Impairment of the Upper Extremity Due to Peripheral Nerve Disorders, and Section 3.1m, Impairment Due to Other Disorders of the Upper Extremity. A table shows shoulder motions and associated degrees of motion and can be used in assessing abnormal range of motion. Assessments of shoulder impairment due to peripheral nerve lesion also requires assessment of sensory loss (or presence of nerve pain) or motor deficits, and these may be categorized to the level of the spinal nerves (C5 to T1). Table 23 is useful regarding impairment from persistent joint subluxation or dislocation, and Table 27 can be helpful in assessing impairment of the upper extremity after arthroplasty of specific bones of joints. Although inter-rater reliability has been reasonably good, the validity of the upper extremity impairment rating has been questioned, and further research in industrial medicine and physical disability is required.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Rtika Abraham ◽  
Rachel Pollitzer ◽  
Murat Gokden ◽  
Peter Goulden

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 797-797
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Garcia Morales ◽  
Nicholas Reed

Abstract Sensory impairment is prevalent among older adults and may increase risk for delirium via mechanisms including sensory deprivation and poor communication which may result in confusion and agitation. In the Medicare Current Beneficiary Study (MCBS), delirium was measured using a validated algorithm of claims data. Sensory impairment was defined as any self-reported trouble hearing or seeing, with the use of aids, and was categorized as no impairment, hearing impairment only (HI), vision impairment only (VI), and dual sensory impairment (DSI). Among, 3,240 hospitalized participants in 2016-2017, 346 (10.7%) experienced delirium. In a model adjusted for socio-demographic and health characteristics, those with HI only, VI only, and DSI had 0.84 (95% CI: 0.6-1.3), 1.1 (95% CI 0.7-1.7), and 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1) times the odds of experiencing delirium compared to those without sensory impairment. Future research should focus on mechanisms underlying association and determine the impact of treatment of sensory loss.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 075-084
Author(s):  
Ahmed F. Shakarchi ◽  
Lama Assi ◽  
Abhishek Gami ◽  
Christina Kohn ◽  
Joshua R. Ehrlich ◽  
...  

AbstractWith the aging of the population, vision (VL), hearing (HL), and dual-sensory (DSL, concurrent VL and HL) loss will likely constitute important public health challenges. Walking speed is an indicator of functional status and is associated with mortality. Using the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. cohort, we analyzed the longitudinal relationship between sensory loss and walking speed. In multivariable mixed effects linear models, baseline walking speed was slower by 0.05 m/s (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04–0.07) for VL, 0.02 (95% CI = 0.003–0.03) for HL, and 0.07 (95% CI = 0.05–0.08) for DSL compared with those without sensory loss. Similar annual declines in walking speeds occurred in all groups. In time-to-event analyses, the risk of incident slow walking speed (walking speed < 0.6 m/s) was 43% (95% CI = 25–65%), 29% (95% CI = 13–48%), and 35% (95% CI = 13–61%) higher among those with VL, HL, and DSL respectively, relative to those without sensory loss. The risk of incident very slow walking speed (walking speed < 0.4 m/s) was significantly higher among those with HL and DSL relative to those without sensory loss, and significantly higher among those with DSL relative to those with VL or HL alone. Addressing sensory loss and teaching compensatory strategies may help mitigate the effect of sensory loss on walking speed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 232-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Crowe ◽  
Hanna Birkbak Hovaldt ◽  
Jesper Dammeyer

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 797-797
Author(s):  
Nicholas Reed ◽  
Charlotte Yeh

Abstract Communication is fundamental to patient-centered care. However, sensory impairment limits communication among older adults. Specifically, hearing impairment strains communication via degraded auditory encoding while vision impairment distresses ability to read and interpret visual cues. The presence of dual sensory impairment, defined as concurrent hearing and vision impairment, may exacerbate these effects. The potential consequence s of age-related sensory loss on health care interactions and outcomes are beginning to surface in epidemiologic studies demonstrating poorer patient-provider communication, higher medical expenditures, increased risk of 30-day readmission, and longer length of stay when compared to individuals without sensory loss. Importantly, these associations may be amenable to intervention via sensory aids; however, uptake to sensory care is low. Notably, less than 20% of persons with hearing impairment have hearing aids and over 55% of Medicare Beneficiaries with reported vision problems have not had an eye examination in the prior year. Affordability and access may contribute to lack of sensory care uptake as Medicare explicitly excludes coverage of vision and hearing services. In this symposium, we will review current and new evidence for whether sensory loss affects health care outcomes, including satisfaction with care, incident delirium during hospitalization, navigation of Medicare, and present data on how persons with sensory loss are more likely to delay their care independent of cost and insurance factors suggesting fundamental changes in health care system interaction. We will place these results within the context of current national quality care and policy initiatives and review methods to address sensory loss.


Children ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 323
Author(s):  
Rocío Palomo-Carrión ◽  
Rita Pilar Romero-Galisteo ◽  
Helena Romay-Barrero ◽  
Inés Martínez-Galán ◽  
Cristina Lirio-Romero ◽  
...  

Infantile hemiparesis may be associated with significant morbidity and may have a profound impact on a child’s physical and social development. Infantile hemiparesis is associated with motor dysfunction as well as additional neurologic impairments, including sensory loss, mental retardation, epilepsy, and vision, hearing, or speech impairments. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between the cause of infantile hemiparesis and birth (gestational age), age of diagnosis, and associated disorders present in children with infantile hemiparesis aged 0 to 3 years. An observational and cross-sectional study was performed. A simple and anonymous questionnaire was created ad hoc for parents of children diagnosed with infantile hemiparesis aged between 0 and 3 years about the situation regarding the diagnosis of hemiparesis, birth, cause of hemiparesis, and presence of other associated disorders. Perinatal stroke (60.1%) was the most common cause of hemiparesis, and the most typical associated disorder was epilepsy (34.2%), with the second largest percentage in this dimension corresponding to an absence of associated disorders (20.7%). The most frequent birth was “no premature” (74.1%). The mean age of diagnosis of infantile hemiparesis was registered at 8 months (IQR: 0–36). Knowing the possible association between different conditioning factors and the cause of infantile hemiparesis facilitates the prevention of severe sequelae in children and family, implementing an early comprehensive therapeutic approach in children with infantile hemiparesis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document