ABSTRACT
Thoracic radiculopathy represents an uncommon spinal disorder that is frequently overlooked in the evaluation of thoracic, or abdominal pain syndrome. The clinical representation of this uncommon disorder is often atypical. With many differential diagnoses to consider, it is not surprising that the cause of thoracic radiculopathy is often not discovered for months, or years, after the symptoms arise. We report two rare cases of thoracic radiculopathy; one case was caused by extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma (EES) along the thoracic paraspinal area, and the other by foraminal stenosis, due to a bony spur of the thoracic vertebra. As such, thoracic radiculopathy should be considered in the diagnosis of patients with thoracic and abdominal pain, especially if initial diagnostic studies are inconclusive.
Subject(s)
Humans , Abdominal Pain , Constriction, Pathologic , Diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Radiculopathy , Sarcoma, Ewing , SpineABSTRACT
Thoracic radiculopathy represents an uncommon spinal disorder that is frequently overlooked in the evaluation of thoracic, or abdominal pain syndrome. The clinical representation of this uncommon disorder is often atypical. With many differential diagnoses to consider, it is not surprising that the cause of thoracic radiculopathy is often not discovered for months, or years, after the symptoms arise. We report two rare cases of thoracic radiculopathy; one case was caused by extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma (EES) along the thoracic paraspinal area, and the other by foraminal stenosis, due to a bony spur of the thoracic vertebra. As such, thoracic radiculopathy should be considered in the diagnosis of patients with thoracic and abdominal pain, especially if initial diagnostic studies are inconclusive.
Subject(s)
Humans , Abdominal Pain , Constriction, Pathologic , Diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Radiculopathy , Sarcoma, Ewing , SpineABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the differences in the vertical ground reaction force (GRF) variables of hemiplegic patients compared with a control group, and between the affected and unaffected limbs of hemiplegic patients using foot scans. METHODS: Patients (n=20) with hemiplegia and healthy volunteers (n=20) underwent vertical force analysis. We measured the following: the first and second peak forces (F1, F2) and the percent stances at which they occurred (T1, T2); the vertical force impulse (VFI) and stance times. The GRF results were compared between the hemiplegic patients and control individuals, and between the affected and unaffected limbs of hemiplegic patients. Additionally, we analyzed the impulse of the unaffected limb according to the motor assessment scale (MAS), Brunnstrom stage, and a Timed Up and Go Test. RESULTS: The F1s and F2s of the affected and unaffected limbs were significantly less than those of the normal control individuals (p<0.05). The T1s of both the affected and unaffected limbs of the patients were greater than control individuals, whilst the T2s were lower (p<0.05). Greater impulses and stance times were recorded on both sides of the patients than in the limbs of the control individuals (p<0.05). The MAS, Brunnstrom stage and Timed Up and Go Test results were significantly correlated with the VFI of the unaffected limbs (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The high impulse values of the unaffected limb were associated with complications during gait rehabilitation. Therefore, these results suggest that unaffected limbs should also be taken into consideration in these patients.