scholarly journals Necrotising vasculitis with conduction block in mononeuropathy multiplex with cold agglutinins

1999 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 556a-558a ◽  
Author(s):  
R OTSUKA ◽  
F UMEHARA ◽  
K ARIMURA ◽  
Y MARUYAMA ◽  
Y ARIMURA ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
Jay Blaisdell ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract Like the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) method and the range-of-motion (ROM) method for rating permanent impairment, the approach for rating compression or entrapment neuropathy in the upper extremity (eg, carpal tunnel syndrome [CTS]) is a separate and distinct methodology in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition. Rating entrapment neuropathies is similar to the DBI method because the evaluator uses three grade modifiers (ie, test findings, functional history, and physical evaluation findings), but the way these modifiers are applied is different from that in the DBI method. Notably, the evaluator must have valid nerve conduction test results and cannot diagnose or rate nerve entrapment or compression without them; postoperative nerve conduction studies are not necessary for impairment rating purposes. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, uses criteria that match those established by the Normative Data Task Force and endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM); evaluators should be aware of updated definitions of normal from AANEM. It is possible that some patients may be diagnosed with carpal or cubital tunnel syndrome for treatment but will not qualify for that diagnosis for impairment rating; evaluating physicians must be familiar with electrodiagnostic test results to interpret them and determine if they confirm to the criteria for conduction delay, conduction block, or axon loss; if this is not the case, the evaluator may use the DBI method with the diagnosis of nonspecific pain.


2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Pecha ◽  
F Weinberger ◽  
Y Yildirim ◽  
B Sill ◽  
L Conradi ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Madershahian ◽  
T Wittwer ◽  
J Strauch ◽  
J Wippermann ◽  
UFW Franke ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Brown ◽  
Brad V. Watson

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuta Seko ◽  
Takao Kato ◽  
Yuhei Yamaji ◽  
Yoshisumi Haruna ◽  
Eisaku Nakane ◽  
...  

AbstractWhile the prognostic impact of QRS axis deviation has been assessed, it has never been investigated in patients without conduction block. Thus, we evaluated the prognostic impact of QRS-axis deviation in patients without conduction block. We retrospectively analyzed 3353 patients who had undergone both scheduled transthoracic echocardiography and electrocardiography in 2013 in a hospital-based population, after excluding patients with a QRS duration of ≥ 110 ms, pacemaker placement, and an QRS-axis − 90° to − 180° (northwest axis). The study population was categorized into three groups depending on the mean frontal plane QRS axis as follows: patients with left axis deviation (N = 171), those with right axis deviation (N = 94), and those with normal axis (N = 3088). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in the left axis deviation group (26.4% in the left axis deviation, 22.7% in the right axis deviation, and 18.4% in the normal axis groups, log-rank P = 0.004). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of primary outcome measure remained significant in the left axis deviation group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–1.95; P = 0.02), while the excess risk of primary outcome measure was not significant in the right axis deviation group (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.76–1.96; P = 0.41). Left axis deviation was associated with a higher risk of a composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events in hospital-based patients without conduction block in Japan.


1952 ◽  
Vol 247 (9) ◽  
pp. 314-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance D. Gallagher ◽  
J. Roswell Gallagher

1972 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 599.2-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jannie A. De Lange ◽  
George J. Eernisse ◽  
Jan J. Veltkamp

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document