4.5 Article

Clinical Evaluation of Nerve Function in Electrical Accident Survivors with Persisting Neurosensory Symptoms

Journal

BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12101301

Keywords

neurophysiology; electrical accidents; neurography; QST; LEP; self-reported symptoms

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish government [OLL-839111]
  2. AFA Insurance group [190010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used clinical neurophysiological techniques to assess neurosensory function in patients after workplace electrical accidents and correlated test results with symptoms. The results showed that a majority of patients had neurosensory impairments, with a weak correlation between test results and self-reported symptoms.
Objective: Work related electrical accidents are prevalent and can cause persisting symptoms. We used clinical neurophysiological techniques to assess neurosensory function following electrical accidents and correlated test results with the patients' symptoms. Methods: We studied 24 patients who reported persisting neurosensory symptoms following a workplace electrical accident. We assessed nerve function using quantitative sensory testing (QST), thermal roller testing, laser evoked potential (LEP), and electroneurography. The patients' results were compared with previously established normative data. Results: Altogether, 67% of the patients showed at least one neurosensory impairment with a large heterogeneity in test results across patients. At a group level, we observed significant deviations in in QST, LEP, and sensory and motor neurography. Overall, we found a weak correlation between test results and self-reported symptoms. Conclusions: In a majority of patients with neurosensory symptoms after a workplace electrical accident, neurosensory testing confirmed the existence of an underlying impairment of the nervous system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available