Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 22 items for
- Author or Editor: Leon H. Ensalada x
- Refine by Access: All content x
Abstract
The cauda equina is a collection of peripheral nerves in the common dural sheath within the lumbar spinal canal. Cauda equina syndrome, also known as bilateral acute radicular syndrome, usually is caused by a large, sequestered acute disc rupture at L3-4, L4-5, or L5-S1 that produces partial or complete lesions of the cauda equina–lower motor neuron lesions associated with flaccid paralysis, atrophy, and other conditions. Patients usually present with a history of back symptoms that have worsened precipitously. The syndrome includes back pain, bilateral leg pain, saddle anesthesia, bilateral lower extremity weakness, urinary bladder retention, and lax rectal tone. Cauda equina syndrome is rated using Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) lumbosacral categories VI or VII. Category VI, Cauda Equina–like Syndrome Without Bowel or Bladder Signs, is used when there is permanent bilateral partial loss of lower extremity function but no bowel or bladder impairment. Category VII, Cauda Equina Syndrome with Bowel or Bladder Impairment, is similar to Category VI but also includes bowel or bladder impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) uses the term cauda equina syndrome with reference to both the thoracolumbar and cervicothoracic spine regions; this usage is unique to the AMA Guides but maintains the internal consistency of the Injury Model, which is the best approach to date for assessing spine impairment.
Abstract
In the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, the methods for rating impairment to causalgia, reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), and complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS) differ from the approaches found in previous editions. Methods for evaluating impairment due to causalgia, RSD, and CRPS can be described as having anatomic or functional bases. The physical evaluation determines the anatomic impairment and is based on history and a detailed examination; the functional evaluation measures the individual's performance of the activities of daily living (ADL). Chapter 13 of the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, considers causalgia and RSD in Section 13.8, Criteria for Rating Impairments Related to Chronic Pain, and defines chronic pain as the diagnoses of causalgia, posttraumatic neuralgia, and reflex sympathetic dystrophy. In contradistinction to Chapters 16 and 17 and the Glossary, the new term CRPS is not used here. Chapter 16 considers CRPS, RSD (now CRPS I), and causalgia (now CRPS II) and notes that, “contrary to previous suggestions, regional sympathetic blockade has no role in the diagnosis of CRPS.” Chapter 17 uses a functional approach for assessing impairment due to causalgia, RSD, and CRPS. Pending further guidance, evaluators should ensure that their methods for rating lower extremity impairments due to causalgia, RSE, and CRPS are internally consistent.
Abstract
Part II of this two-part series continues the discussion of diagnostic and treatment issues related to reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) and presents approaches to assessing pain and disability associated with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). CRPS encompasses CRPS Type I (RSD) and CRPS Type II (causalgia), but the approach of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition is problematic. The current approach may not account for the complete impairment, and RSD/CRPS I by definition does not involve a specific peripheral nerve disorder. Causalgia/CRPS II by definition involves a specific peripheral nerve disorder, and the physician can assess impairment due to pain and sensory deficit or loss of power and motor deficits by multiplying the graded percent deficit with the maximum allowable impairment for the specific peripheral nerve. RSD/CRPS I by definition does not involve disruption of a peripheral nerve, but the criteria recommended by the AMA Guides may be difficult to use. The fourth edition of the AMA Guides advises that, in general, only one evaluation method should be used to evaluate a specific impairment, and a table specifies which tests should not be used together, those that may be used in combination, if appropriate, and those for which combination is not specified.
Abstract
The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) notes that many methods used to report medical impairments rely on the completeness, accuracy, and honesty of the patient's self-presentations. Symptom exaggeration is best understood in the context of clinical phenomena that lie along a continuum from unconscious and unintentional to conscious and intentional. Illness behavior refers to the ways in which given symptoms may be perceived, evaluated, and acted upon by different persons, and such behavior can be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on context, and can be learned and reinforced. Further, certain illness behaviors potentially confound the association between illness or injury, on the one hand, and impairment or disability, on the other hand. For example, any deficit can be exaggerated, including neuropsychological deficits, pain, and loss of sensation. Specialized assessments include symptom validity testing to assess memory or sensory deficits, and maximum voluntary effort testing assesses strength deficits. In their assessment of illness behavior, physicians should employ the same degree of thoroughness as they would with any condition. Written reports should include not only the conclusion that symptom exaggeration is present but also the basis for this determination. A table shows the characteristics of symptom magnification syndromes and other related conditions vs the presence of symptoms such as seeking gain or deception.
