Pilomatrixoma

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 417-418
Author(s):  
Billy R. Martin ◽  
Katherine Neiderer ◽  
James F. Dancho
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Clinical Presentation ◽  
Head Neck

We discuss the clinical presentation and treatment of pilomatrixoma as it occurs in the lower extremity. Although pilomatrixoma is far more common on the head, neck, and upper extremity, it can be found on the lower extremity. Treatment is aimed primarily at excision if the lesion is symptomatic or suspicious for malignancy. The authors present a case of a 73-year-old male who presented to the diabetic foot center with this condition. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 102(5): 417–418, 2012)

Injuries associated with bunk beds occurring at schools: results using a US national data base

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 372-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall T Loder ◽  
Luke Momper
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
National Data ◽  
Injury Surveillance System ◽  
College Age ◽  
Bunk Bed ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Head Neck

ObjectiveTo investigate bunk bed injuries occurring across all educational institutions using a national data base.MethodsNational Electronic Injury Surveillance System data for the years 2006–2015 associated with bunk beds was analysed.ResultsThere were an estimated 639 700 emergency department (ED) visits for bunk bed injuries; 1.3% occurred at school. Those occurring at school were older than those not at school (18.2 vs 12.8 years), and more commonly female (56.4% vs 40.6%), Caucasian (91.7% vs 68.3%) and associated with alcohol (10.8% vs 0.4%). For those occurring at school, the average age for those involving the trunk, upper extremity, lower extremity and head/neck areas was 17.9, 14.9, 19.2 and 18.7 years, respectively (p<10−4). A fracture was present in 6.4%, 52.3%, 21.2% and 9.6% of the trunk, upper extremity, lower extremity and head/neck areas, respectively (p=0.009). Males had a higher percentage of lacerations and females had a higher percentage of internal organ injuries. The vast majority of the fractures and strain/sprains occurred in the extremities; lacerations in the head/neck and contusion/abrasions predominantly involved the extremities and head/neck.Conclusions1.3% of all ED visits due to bunk bed injuries occurred in places of education. The majority of these were during college age. Prevention strategies should be directed at educational institutions and students, as well as following proper bunk bed equipment guidelines. Education regarding alcohol risks might assist college age students.

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.

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.

Merkel Cell Carcinoma of the Lower Extremity

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 422-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic J. Roda ◽  
Brian Albano ◽  
Bharti Rathore ◽  
Linda Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Merkel Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Presentation ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Excisional Biopsy ◽  
Lymph Node Biopsy ◽  
Rapid Progression ◽  
Merkel Cell ◽  
Unusual Lesion

Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare, often fatal, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy with a highly variable clinical presentation. Due to the rapid progression of the disease, early detection and treatment is vital to survival. Here, we report the case of a 45-year-old woman whose podiatrist noticed an unusual lesion on her lower left leg and referred her to a dermatologist for work-up. A diagnostic excisional biopsy confirmed the diagnosis and was followed by treatment that included wide local excision of the primary lesion with subsequent chemotherapy and radiation. At the time of diagnosis, sentinel lymph node biopsy was positive. Due to the increasing prevalence of Merkel cell carcinoma in the past decade and its propensity to present on the lower extremity, podiatric physicians need to be aware of the clinical presentation and treatment guidelines for this elusive disease.

scholarly journals Recurrence of Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis Secondary to COVID-19

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 878
Author(s):  
Yesha H. Parekh ◽  
Nicole J. Altomare ◽  
Erin P. McDonnell ◽  
Martin J. Blaser ◽  
Payal D. Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Deep Vein

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 leading to COVID-19 induces hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulable states, resulting in arterial and venous thromboembolic events. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been well reported in COVID-19 patients. While most DVTs occur in a lower extremity, involvement of the upper extremity is uncommon. In this report, we describe the first reported patient with an upper extremity DVT recurrence secondary to COVID-19 infection.

scholarly journals ORTHOPEDIC INJURIES IN ADOLESCENT GYMNASTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0011
Author(s):  
Katie Kim ◽  
Michael Saper
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
The Body ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adult ◽  
Body Region ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Orthopedic Injuries ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Background: Gymnastics exposes the body to many different types of stressors ranging from repetitive motion, high impact loading, extreme weight bearing, and hyperextension. These stressors predispose the spine and upper and lower extremities to injury. In fact, among female sports, gymnastics has the highest rate of injury each year. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on location and types of orthopedic injuries in adolescent (≤20 years) gymnasts. Methods: The Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO (CINAHL) and Web of Science databases were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all studies reporting orthopedic injuries in adolescent and young adult gymnasts. All aspects of injuries were extracted and analyzed including location, type and rates of orthopedic injuries. Results: Screening yielded 22 eligible studies with a total of 427,225 patients. Twenty of 22 studies reported upper extremity injuries of which four specifically focused on wrist injuries. Eight studies reported lower extremity injuries. Nine studies reported back/spinal injuries. Seven studies investigated each body location of injury; one study reported the upper extremity as the most common location for injury and six studies reported the lower extremity as the most common location for injury. Of those seven studies, five (23%) reported sprains and strains as the most common injury. One study reported fractures as the most common injury. Conclusion: There is considerable variation in reported injury location. Some studies focused specifically on the spine/back or wrist. The type of gymnastics each patient participated in was also different, contributing to which area of the body was more heavily stressed, or lacking. Current literature lacks data to fully provide evidence regarding which body region is more frequently injured and the type of injury sustained.

scholarly journals Multiple Muscular Variations in the Neck, Upper Extremity, and Lower Extremity Biased toward the Left Side of a Single Cadaver

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Ho Bang ◽  
Young-Chun Gil ◽  
Hee-Jun Yang ◽  
Jeong-Doo Jin ◽  
Jae-Ho Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity

Clinical factors and mortality rates for non-traumatic upper extremity amputations

2021 ◽  
pp. 175319342110427
Author(s):  
Yong-Zheng Jonathan Ting ◽  
An-Sen Tan ◽  
Chi-Peng Timothy Lai ◽  
Mala Satku
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Peripheral Arterial ◽  
Extremity Amputation

Non-traumatic upper extremity amputations are an increasing concern with the rising prevalence of diabetes mellitus. To ascertain the risk factors and mortality rates for these amputations, the demographic information, amputation history, comorbidities and clinical outcomes of 140 patients who underwent non-traumatic upper extremity amputations between 1 January 2004 and 31 October 2017 were studied. Correlations were assessed using Cochran-Armitage chi-squared tests, odds ratios and multivariate binomial logistic regression as appropriate. Diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, end-stage renal failure, peripheral arterial disease and prior lower extremity amputation were significant risk factors for multiple upper extremity amputations. One-year, 2-year and 5-year mortality rates were 12%, 15% and 38%, respectively, following first upper extremity amputation. The risk factors for upper extremity amputations correspond with those for lower extremity amputations, comprising mainly diabetes mellitus and its related comorbidities. The mortality rates for non-traumatic upper extremity amputations highlight their significant burden on patients. Level of evidence: III

scholarly journals Limb Salvage and Functional Outcomes following Free Tissue Transfer for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Diabetic Foot Ulcers

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (02) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Lu ◽  
Michael DeFazio ◽  
Chrisovalantis Lakhiani ◽  
Michel Abboud ◽  
Morgan Penzler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Limb Salvage ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Free Tissue Transfer ◽  
Major Amputation ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Flap Survival ◽  
Foot Reconstruction

Background Recent evidence documenting high success rates following microvascular diabetic foot reconstruction has led to a paradigm shift in favor of more aggressive limb preservation. The primary aim of this study was to examine reconstructive and functional outcomes in patients who underwent free tissue transfer (FTT) for recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) at our tertiary referral center for advanced limb salvage. Methods Between June 2013 and June 2016, 29 patients underwent lower extremity FTT for diabetic foot reconstruction by the senior author (K.K.E.). In all cases, microsurgical reconstruction was offered as an alternative to major amputation for the management of recalcitrant DFUs. Overall rates of flap survival, limb salvage, and postoperative ambulation were evaluated. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) score was used to assess functional outcomes after surgery. Results Overall rates of flap success and lower limb salvage were 93 and 79%, respectively. Flap failure occurred in two patients with delayed microvascular compromise. Seven patients in this series ultimately required below-knee amputation secondary to recalcitrant infection (n = 5), intractable pain (n = 1), and limb ischemia (n = 1). The average interval between FTT and major amputation was 8 months (r, 0.2–15 months). Postoperative ambulation was confirmed in 25 patients (86%) after a mean final follow-up of 25 months (r, 10–48 months). The average LEFS score for all patients was 46 out of 80 points (r, 12–80 points), indicating the ability to ambulate in the community with some limitations. Conclusion FTT for the management of recalcitrant DFUs is associated with high rates of reconstructive success and postoperative ambulation. However, several patients will eventually require major amputation for reasons unrelated to ultimate flap survival. These data should be used to counsel patients regarding the risks, functional implications, and prognosis of microvascular diabetic foot reconstruction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document