COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A comparison of surgery for neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome between laborers and nonlaborers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors of outcome following surgical intervention for neurologic thoracic outlet syndrome (NTOS).

METHODS: In a retrospective study of patients surgically treated for NTOS, outcome was evaluated by postoperative symptoms and the ability of patients to return to work.

RESULTS: Good, fair, and poor results were obtained in 26 (48%), 21 (39%), and 7 (13%) patients, respectively. The best predictor of a good outcome was occupation. Nonlaborers were more likely to have good outcome (21 of 32, 66%) when compared with laborers (5 of 22, 23%; P = 0.0025). Only 6 of 20 (30%) laborers were able to return to their original occupation compared with 17 of 26 (65%) nonlaborers (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS: Laborers with NTOS are less likely to have a good result from surgical intervention, are unlikely to return to their original occupation, and may require retraining for a non-labor-intensive occupation if they cannot return to their original work.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app