Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a nonspecific label. When employing it, one should define the type of TOS as arterial TOS, venous TOS, or neurogenic TOS. Each type has different symptoms and physical findings by which the three types can easily be identified. Neurogenic TOS (NTOS) is by far the most common, comprising well over 90% of all TOS patients. Arterial TOS is the least common accounting for no more than 1%. Many patients are erroneously diagnosed as "vascular" TOS, a nonspecific misnomer, whereas they really have NTOS. The Adson Test of noting a radial pulse deficit in provocative positions has been shown to be of no clinical value and should not be relied upon to make the diagnosis of any of the three types. The test is normal in most patients with NTOS and at the same time can be positive in many control volunteers. Arterial TOS is caused by emboli arising from subclavian artery stenosis or aneurysms. Symptoms are those of arterial ischemia and x-rays almost always disclose a cervical rib or anomalous first rib. Venous TOS presents with arm swelling, cyanosis, and pain due to subclavian vein obstruction, with or without thrombosis. Neurogenic TOS is due to brachial plexus compression usually from scarred scalene muscles secondary to neck trauma, whiplash injuries being the most common. Symptoms include extremity paresthesia, pain, and weakness as well as neck pain and occipital headache. Physical exam is most important and includes several provocative maneuvers including neck rotation and head tilting, which elicit symptoms in the contralateral extremity; the upper limb tension test, which is comparable to straight leg raising; and abducting the arms to 90 degrees in external rotation, which usually brings on symptoms within 60 seconds.
Campbell, B. C.V. et al. (2019) Penumbral imaging and functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy versus medical therapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data.ABSTRACT Background: CT-perfusion (CTP) and MRI may assist patient selection for endovascular thrombectomy. We aimed to establish whether imaging assessments of ischaemic core and penumbra volumes were associated with functional outcomes and treatment effect.
: Arterial and venous TOS are usually not difficult to recognize and the diagnosis can be confirmed by angiography. The diagnosis of neurogenic TOS is more challenging because its symptoms of nerve compression are not unique. The clinical diagnosis relies on documenting several positive findings on physical examination. To date there is still no reliable objective test to confirm the diagnosis, but measurements of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve appear promising.
Campbell, B. C. V. et al. (2018) Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Neurology, 17(1), pp. 47-53. (doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30407-6) This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/149670/ variables. An alternative approach using propensity-score stratification was also used. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modeling with a random effect for trial incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.Findings: Of 1764 patients in 7 trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 who did not undergo the procedure and 2 with missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236/797 (30%) of endovascular patients were treated under GA. At baseline, GA patients were younger and had shorter time to randomisation but similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared to non-GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months versus standard care in both GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95%CI 1·09-2·11, p=0·014) and non-GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95%CI 1·75-3·10, p<0·001) patients. However, outcomes were significantly better for those treated under non-GA versus GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95%CI 1·14-2·04, p=0·004; propensitystratified cOR 1·44 95%CI 1·08-1·92, p=0·012). The risk of bias and variability among studies was assessed to be low.Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons. Funding:The HERMES collaboration was funded by an unrestricted grant from Medtronic to the University of Calgary. Research in contextEvidence before this study between abolition of the thrombectomy treatment effect in MR CLEAN and no effect in THRACE. Three single-centre randomised trials of general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation found either no difference in functional outcome between groups or a slight benefit of general anaesthesia. Added value of this studyThese data from contemporary, high quality randomised trials form the largest study to date of the association between general anesthesia and the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care. We used two different approaches to adjust for baseline imbalances (multivariable logistic regression and propensity-score stratification). We found that GA for endovascular thrombectomy, as practiced in contemporary clinical care across a wide range of expert centres during the rand...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.