The choice of assisted ejaculation method is relevant for the diagnosis of azoospermia in men with spinal cord injuries

V Iremashvili; N L Brackett; E Ibrahim; T C Aballa; C M Lynne

doi:10.1038/sc.2010.91

The choice of assisted ejaculation method is relevant for the diagnosis of azoospermia in men with spinal cord injuries

Spinal Cord ◽

10.1038/sc.2010.91 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 55-59 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

V Iremashvili ◽

N L Brackett ◽

E Ibrahim ◽

T C Aballa ◽

C M Lynne

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Assisted Ejaculation

Download Full-text

Impairment Rating and Spinal Cord Injuries: Revisiting the Guides

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2010.mayjun01 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 15 (3) ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Richard T. Katz

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Functional Independence ◽

Outcome Data ◽

Multiple Organ ◽

Loss Of Function ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Organ Systems ◽

Cord Injury ◽

Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article addresses some criticisms of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) by comparing previously published outcome data from a group of complete spinal cord injury (SCI) persons with impairment ratings for a corresponding level of injury calculated using the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition. Results of the comparison show that impairment ratings using the sixth edition scale poorly with the level of impairments of activities of daily living (ADL) in SCI patients as assessed by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor scale and the extended FIM motor scale. Because of the combinations of multiple impairments, the AMA Guides potentially overrates the impairment of paraplegics compared with that of quadriplegics. The use and applicability of the Combined Values formula should be further investigated, and complete loss of function of two upper extremities seems consistent with levels of quadriplegia using the SCI model. Some aspects of the AMA Guides contain inconsistencies. The concept of diminishing impairment values is not easily translated between specific losses of function per organ system and “overall” loss of ADLs involving multiple organ systems, and the notion of “catastrophic thresholds” involving multiple organ systems may support the understanding that variations in rating may exist in higher rating cases such as those that involve an SCI.

Download Full-text

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.janfeb01 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Robert H. Haralson

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Clinical Findings ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Treatment Results ◽

Standard Terminology ◽

Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Download Full-text