Large-Scale Expansion of the Face Representation in Somatosensory Areas of the Lateral Sulcus after Spinal Cord Injuries in Monkeys

Spinal cord injuries cause psychological in humans and require expensive care and treatments. In recent years, various pharmacological agents have been tested in acute spinal cord injuries. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials on a large scale have failed to demonstrate significant neurological progression, in contrast to their success in the laboratory. The search for an effective neuroprotective pharmacological agent to prevent secondary damage in acute spinal cord injuries remains primary goals for basic sciences and clinicians.

Download Full-text

Vocational Potential and Spinal Cord Injuries - A Review and Evaluation

Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling ◽

10.1891/0047-2220.25.3.47 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 25 (3) ◽

pp. 47-52 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Gregory C. Murphy ◽

James A. Athanasou

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Return To Work ◽

Large Scale ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Work Rate ◽

Point Of View ◽

Post Injury ◽

Average Return ◽

Ethnographic Studies ◽

Spinal Cord Injured

The purpose of this paper is to review the vocational potential of spinal cord injured persons. The results of 17 recent (1976-1991) studies were reviewed. A diversity of study outcomes was indicated and the return to work rates varied from a low of 13% to a high of 69%. A total of 3568 subjects participated in the 17 studies and an estimated 56% of these were described specifically as paraplegics, 44% quadriplegics. Sample sizes within the reports ranged from small ethnographic studies of 15 to large scale follow-up surveys of 760. The results of these independent studies were combined. Overall, 1441 or 40.3% of all the 3568 subjects sampled in the 17 studies returned to work post-injury. For subjects who were followed-up less than five years post-injury, the average return to work rate was 37.9%; for subjects who were followed up at periods exceeding five years post-injury, the return to work rate was higher at 48.6%. From the methodological point of view, some standard measures of outcome are required. It was concluded that the results of these 17 studies are encouraging and indicate the potential of persons with a range of spinal cord injuries.

Download Full-text

Hemispheric Mapping of Secondary Somatosensory Cortex in the Rat

Journal of Neurophysiology ◽

10.1152/jn.00673.2006 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 97 (1) ◽

pp. 200-207 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Alexander M. Benison ◽

David M. Rector ◽

Daniel S. Barth

Keyword(s):

High Resolution ◽

Evoked Potentials ◽

Somatosensory Cortex ◽

Somatosensory Evoked Potentials ◽

Body Representation ◽

Rat Cortex ◽

Face Representation ◽

Secondary Somatosensory Cortex ◽

The Face ◽

Somatosensory Areas

This study used high-resolution hemispheric mapping of somatosensory evoked potentials to determine the number and organization of secondary somatosensory areas (SII) in rat cortex. Two areas, referred to as SII and PV (parietoventral), revealed complete (SII) or nearly complete (PV) body maps. The vibrissa and somatic representation of SII was upright, rostrally oriented, and immediately lateral to primary somatosensory cortex (SI), with a dominant face representation. Vibrissa representations in SII were highly organized, with the rows staggered rostrally along the mediolateral axis. Area PV was approximately one fifth the size of SII, and located rostral and lateral to auditory cortex. PV had a rostrally oriented and inverted body representation that was dominated by the distal extremities, with little representation of the face or vibrissae. These data support the conclusion that in the rat, as in other species, SII and PV represent anatomically and functionally distinct areas of secondary somatosensory cortex.

Download Full-text

Impairment Rating and Spinal Cord Injuries: Revisiting the Guides

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2010.mayjun01 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 15 (3) ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Richard T. Katz

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Functional Independence ◽

Outcome Data ◽

Multiple Organ ◽

Loss Of Function ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Organ Systems ◽

Cord Injury ◽

Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article addresses some criticisms of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) by comparing previously published outcome data from a group of complete spinal cord injury (SCI) persons with impairment ratings for a corresponding level of injury calculated using the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition. Results of the comparison show that impairment ratings using the sixth edition scale poorly with the level of impairments of activities of daily living (ADL) in SCI patients as assessed by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor scale and the extended FIM motor scale. Because of the combinations of multiple impairments, the AMA Guides potentially overrates the impairment of paraplegics compared with that of quadriplegics. The use and applicability of the Combined Values formula should be further investigated, and complete loss of function of two upper extremities seems consistent with levels of quadriplegia using the SCI model. Some aspects of the AMA Guides contain inconsistencies. The concept of diminishing impairment values is not easily translated between specific losses of function per organ system and “overall” loss of ADLs involving multiple organ systems, and the notion of “catastrophic thresholds” involving multiple organ systems may support the understanding that variations in rating may exist in higher rating cases such as those that involve an SCI.

Download Full-text

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.janfeb01 ◽

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.

Download Full-text