Entrapment Neuropathy in the Upper Extremity

Author(s):  
Mukund Thatte
2002 ◽  
Vol 109 (7) ◽  
pp. 2598-2599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huseyin Borman ◽  
Gurler Akinbingol ◽  
Tugrul Maral ◽  
Seyhan Sozay

Health ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (06) ◽  
pp. 823-837
Author(s):  
Kenichi Otoshi ◽  
Shinichi Kikuchi ◽  
Nobuyuki Sasaki ◽  
Miho Sekiguchi ◽  
Koji Otani ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-12
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage ◽  
J. Mark Melhorn

Abstract This article responds to the previous article in this issue of The Guides Newsletter (Two-point Discrimination in the Use of Upper Extremity Nerve Function in the AMA Guides) and discusses why the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, has chosen to retain the use of static two-point discrimination for both acute single incident digital nerve injury and for upper extremity focal entrapment neuropathy. The authors clarify that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition does not use two-point discrimination as a diagnostic criterion for entrapment neuropathy such as carpal tunnel syndrome. Instead, it uses two-point discrimination as a criterion to judge severity, specifically to help select the proper integer for the rating to be assigned for the diagnosis determined by other criteria. Two-point testing is not sensitive but is specific to significant nerve impairment (ie, severity, not diagnosis), and the authors note its advantages of being familiar to most impairment examiners, having a basis in published literature, having variations of the testing protocol that help “objectify” the apparent sensory deficit, and correlating with severity. Thus, if a rating is to be done “according to the AMA Guides,” two-point discrimination remains a required and important part of assessment of the upper extremity neurologic impairment of the hand.


1989 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 897-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine B. Semer ◽  
Nelson H. Goldberg ◽  
Charles B. Cuono

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-265
Author(s):  
Tomoko Higo ◽  
Akihiko Asami ◽  
Toshiyuki Tsuruta ◽  
Hideo Watanabe

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-322
Author(s):  
Tomoko Higo ◽  
Akihiko Asami ◽  
Hideo Watanabe ◽  
Yuriko Watanabe

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham

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).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document