4.6 Article

Complex regional pain syndrome type I: incidence and prevalence in Olmsted county, a population-based study

期刊

PAIN
卷 103, 期 1-2, 页码 199-207

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00065-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [K23 RR-15537] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [T32 HD0 7447] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study is to undertake a population based study on the incidence, prevalence, natural history, and response to treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). All Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Group medical records with codes for reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), CRPS, and compatible diagnoses in the period 1989-1999 were reviewed as part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. We used IASP criteria for CRPS. The study population was in the Olmsted County, Minnesota (1990 population, 106,470). The main outcome measures were CRPS I incidence, prevalence, and outcome. Seventy-four cases of CRPS I were identified, resulting in an incidence rate of 5.46 per 100,000 person years at risk, and a period prevalence of 20.57 per 100,000. Female:male ratio was 4: 1, with a median age of 46 years at onset. Upper limb was affected twice as commonly as lower limb. All cases reported an antecedent event and fracture was the most common trigger (46%). Excellent concordance was found between symptoms and signs and vasomotor symptoms were the most commonly present. Three phase bone scan and autonomic testing diagnosed the condition in >80% of cases. Seventy-foar percent of patients underwent resolution, often spontaneously. CRPS I is of low prevalence, more commonly affects women than men, the upper more than the lower extremity, and three out of four cases undergo resolution. These results suggest that invasive treatment of CRPS may not be warranted in the majority of cases. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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