↓ Skip to main content

CRPS of the upper or lower extremity: surgical treatment outcomes*

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
CRPS of the upper or lower extremity: surgical treatment outcomes*
Published in
Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1749-7221-4-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

A Lee Dellon, Eugenia Andonian, Gedge D Rosson

Abstract

The hypothesis is explored that CRPS I (the "new" RSD) persists due to undiagnosed injured joint afferents, and/or cutaneous neuromas, and/or nerve compressions, and is, therefore, a misdiagnosed form of CRPS II (the "new" causalgia). An IRB-approved, retrospective chart review on a series of 100 consecutive patients with "RSD" identified 40 upper and 30 lower extremity patients for surgery based upon their history, physical examination, neurosensory testing, and nerve blocks. Based upon decreased pain medication usage and recovery of function, outcome in the upper extremity, at a mean of 27.9 months follow-up (range of 9 to 81 months), gave results that were excellent in 40% (16 of 40 patients), good in 40% (16 of 40 patients) and failure 20% (8 of 40 patients). In the lower extremity, at a mean of 23.0 months follow-up (range of 9 to 69 months) the results were excellent in 47% (14 of 30 patients), good in 33% (10 of 30 patients) and failure 20% (6 of 30 patients). It is concluded that most patients referred with a diagnosis of CRPS I have continuing pain input from injured joint or cutaneous afferents, and/or nerve compressions, and, therefore, similar to a patient with CRPS II, they can be treated successfully with an appropriate peripheral nerve surgical strategy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2013.
All research outputs
#18,306,425
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury
#36
of 49 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,706
of 249,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 49 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one scored the same or higher as 13 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.