scholarly journals Are clinical characteristics associated with upper-extremity hypertonia in severe ischaemic supratentorial stroke?

2007 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
AA van Kuijk ◽  
HT Hendricks ◽  
JW Pasman ◽  
BH Kremer ◽  
AC Geurts
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Clinical Characteristics

Clinical characteristics of vascular leiomyoma of the upper extremity: report of 11 cases

1992 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 547-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitsuru Uchida ◽  
Tadao Kojima ◽  
Yuichi Hirase ◽  
Takehisa Lizuka
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Vascular Leiomyoma

scholarly journals Clinical and epidemiological features of heart-hand syndrome, an updated analysis in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaobin Yin ◽  
Jianguang Ji ◽  
Junhui Zhao ◽  
Shanlin Chen ◽  
Wen Tian
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Congenital Malformations ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Septal Defect ◽  
Limb Malformation ◽  
Epidemiological Features ◽  
Wave Patterns ◽  
Common Group ◽  
Electrocardiogram Ecg

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to prospectively recruit patients treated with limb malformation and to explore the prevalence and the clinical and epidemiological features of Heart-Hand Syndrome (HHS) in China. Methods The consecutive patients treated for congenital upper limb malformation in Beijing Ji Shui Tan Hospital from October 1st, 2016 to October 1st, 2019 were prospectively recruited. We reviewed the patients’ medical records and identified patients with abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG) and/or abnormal ultrasonic cardiogram as well as their basic demographic and clinical characteristics. Results A total 1653 (1053 male and 600 female) patients with congenital upper extremity malformations were prospectively recruited. Among them, 200 (12.1%) had abnormal ultrasonic cardiogram (181patients, 10.9%) and/or abnormal ECG (19 patients, 1.1%). The commonest type of abnormal heart structure was atrial septal defect (69/181 38.1%), and the commonest abnormal ECG was wave patterns (7/19, 36.8%). HHS patients had a higher comorbidity rate (11%) than non-HHS patients (6.9%). Patients with HHS were classified into four groups by the types of congenital upper extremity malformations, among which the most common group was thumb type (121/200, 60.5%). Conclusions HHS occurred frequently among patients with congenital upper extremity malformation in China, particularly for those with multiple congenital malformations. The commonest type of hand malformations of HHS patients was thumb malformation.

Clinical Characteristics of Acute Arterial Thromboembolism of Upper Extremity

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
Chae Youn Oh ◽  
Yang Jin Park ◽  
Shin Seok Yang ◽  
Dong Ik Kim ◽  
Duk-Kyung Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Arterial Thromboembolism

scholarly journals AB1287-HPR INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRIP ENDURANCE, DISABILITY OF UPPER EXTREMITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1933.3-1934
Author(s):  
M. Köprülüoğlu ◽  
İ. Naz Gürşan ◽  
D. Solmaz ◽  
G. Kabadayi ◽  
H. Cinakli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Hand Dynamometer ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Grip Endurance

Background:Upper extremity functions affect the quality of life at different levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the current literature; it has been shown that grip endurance is associated with upper limb functions (1). However, there is no study investigating the relationship between grip endurance and quality of life in patients with RA.Objectives:To investigate relationship between grip endurance, disability of upper extremity and quality of life in patients with RA.Methods:In our cross sectional study, 23 RA patients [Mean age; 52.7±12.6, BMI;26.9±5.7 kg/m2, Women;20(87.0%)] who were classified according to the ACR 2010 criteria. Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients were recorded (Table 1). Das28 for disease activity score, Static and dynamic grip endurance measurements using Hand Dynamometer (Lafayette Proffessional Hand Dynamometer, USA) for grip endurance, Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Survey (DASH) for disabilities and symptoms of upper extremity and Short Form-36 Health Survey for quality of life were performed. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient was used for data analysis.Table 1.Demografic and Clinical Characteristics of PatientsVariables (n=23)Median(IQR 25/75)Age (year)56(41/62)BMI (kg/m2)27,5(21.4/32.0)Disease Duration(year)8(5/15)Morning Stiffness (VAS/mm)38(23/48)Perceived Disability of Hand (VAS,mm)47(25/67)Clinician Disability of Hand (VAS,mm)30(20/39)Number Of Tender Hand Joint2(0/6)Number Of Swollen Hand Joint0(0/1)CRP(mg l)3,3(1.8/7.1)ESR(nm/h)13(6/21)n(%)Morning Stiffness Duratton0-15 minutes8 (34.8)15-30 minutes5 (21.7)30-60 minutes3 (13.0)Longer than 1 hours7 (30.4)Das28Remission11(47.8)Low Activity2(8.7)Moderate Activity7(30.4)High Activity3(13.0)Data is presented median (interquantile range) or percentile (%).Results:Grip endurance was negatively correlated with DASH and positively correlated with many different quality of life parameters, especially physical function, on both the dominant and non-dominant sides (p <0.05). DASH was correlated negatively with SF-36 physical function, rol limitataion due to physical health, pain subparameters and positively correlated with Das28 score (p<0.05).Conclusion:In our study, it was concluded that grip endurance was related to upper extremity functions and quality of life in patients with RA. This result shows that; assessment of grip endurance can be a guide for clinicians who have designed an upper limb rehabilitation program for patients with RA.References:1. VERMA, Chhaya, et al. Correlation of functional ability of the hand with upper limb function and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.J Assoc Physicians India, 2017, 65: 20-4.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document