4.1 Article

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of nailfold capillaries by capillaroscopy in healthy volunteers

期刊

出版社

VERLAG HANS HUBER HOGREFE AG
DOI: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000159

关键词

Nailfold capillaroscopy; healthy adults; capillary morphology; capillary density

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nailfold capillaroscopy (NVC) is a diagnostic tool particularly useful in the differential diagnosis of rheumatic and connective tissue diseases. Although successfully applied since many years, little is known about prevalence and distribution of NVC changes in healthy individuals. Probands and methods: NVC was performed in 120 individuals (57 men and 63 women; age 18 to 70 years) randomly selected according to predefined age and sex strata. Diseases associated with NVC changes were excluded. The nailfolds of eight fingers were assessed according to standardized procedures. A scoring system was developed based on the distribution of the number of morphologically deviating capillaries, microhaemorrhages, and capillary density. Results: Only 18 individuals (15%) had no deviation in morphology, haemorrhages, or capillary density on any finger. Overall 67% had morphological changes, 48% had microhaemorrhages, and 40% of volunteers below 40 years of age and 18% above age 40 had less than 8 capillaries/mm. Among morphological changes tortous (43%), ramified (47%), and bushy capillaries (27%) were the most frequently altered capillary types. A semiquantitative scoring system was developed in such a way that a score above 1 indicates an extreme position (above the 90th percentile) in the distribution of scores among healthy individuals. Conclusions: Altered capillaries occur frequently among healthy individuals and should be interpreted as normal unless a suspicious increase in their frequency is determined by reference to the scoring system. Megacapillaries and diffuse loss of capillaries were not found and seem to be of specific diagnostic value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据