Can testing of six individual muscles represent a screening approach to upper limb neuropathic conditions?

Clinical neurological examination vs electrophysiological studies: Reflections from experiences in occupational medicine

Seventy-five percent of upper limb disorders that are related to work are regarded as diagnostically unclassifiable and therefore challenging to the clinician. Therefore it has been generally less successfully to prevent and treat these common and frequently disabling disorders. To reach a diagnosis requires the identification of the responsible pathology and the involved tissues and structures. Consequently, improved diagnostic approaches are needed. This editorial discusses the potentials of using the clinical neurologic examination in patients with upper limb complaints related to work. It is argued that a simple but systematic physical approach permits the examiner to frequently identify patterns of neurological findings that suggest nerve afflictions and their locations, and that electrophysiological studies are less likely to identify pathology. A diagnostic algorithm for the physical assessment is provided to assist the clinician. Failure to include representative neurological items in the physical examination may result in patients being misinterpreted, misdiagnosed and mistreated.

Brachial plexopathy: a case-control study of the relation to physical exposures at work

BACKGROUND

Work-related upper limb disorders constitute a diagnostic challenge. However, patterns of neurological abnormalities that reflect brachial plexus dysfunction are frequent in limbs with pain, weakness and/or numbness/tingling. There is limited evidence about the association between occupational physical exposures and brachial plexopathy.

METHODS

80 patients with brachial plexopathy according to defined criteria and 65 controls of similar age and sex without upper limb complaints were recruited by general practitioners. Patients and controls completed a questionnaire on physical and psychosocial work-exposures and provided psychophysical ratings of their perceived exposures. The exposures of cases and controls were compared by a Wilcoxon rank sum test. Odds ratios and dose-response relationships were studied by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Whether assessed as the extent during the workday or days/week, most physical exposures, in particular upper limb posture and repetition, were significant risk indicators with clear dose-response relationships. These findings were supported by psychophysical responses that also identified perceived work pace and the use of force as risk indicators. The identified psychosocial relations were limited to measures reflecting physical exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

While the identified risk indicators have previously been associated to upper limb symptoms as well as to diagnosed disorders other than brachial plexopathy, this study indicates an association between physical and work-exposures and brachial plexopathy. Longitudinal studies should be conducted in order to exclude bias from information and selection, both of which may occur with the applied case-control design.