PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12686013

Thoracic Outlet Syndromes.

Abstract

The clinical presentation of thoracic outlet syndrome depends on which anatomic structure is compressed in the area of the thoracic outlet (eg, the axillary-subclavian artery, vein, brachial plexus, or the sympathetic nerves). The clinical syndrome may be isolated to one or a mixture of these compressed anatomic structures. Although there are multiple compressive forces, the first rib is the common denominator, and extirpation of this structure is the "gold" standard for therapy. The various syndromes are discussed in their clinical order of frequency. For severe nerve compression, whether upper or lower brachial plexus, the best surgical procedure is the transaxillary first rib resection, anterior scalenectomy, and neurovascular decompression. Axillary-subclavian vein occlusion (ie, Paget-Schroetter syndrome) is best treated with early diagnosis, intravenous thrombolysis of the clot, transaxillary first rib resection anterior scalenectomy, and resection of the costoclavicular ligament. Arterial compression, occlusion, or aneurysm may occur with or without peripheral emboli and require a supraclavicular approach with arterial ligation, endarterectomy, or bypass grafts from the supraclavicular subclavian to the infraclavicular brachial artery. Compression of the sympathetic nerves produces vasospasm, Raynaud's phenomenon, or Raynaud's disease, requiring dorsal sympathectomy as well as first rib extirpation occasionally. This may be performed through the transaxillary, supraclavicular posterior, or thoracoscopic approach. Recurrent thoracic outlet syndrome may involve any or all of the above anatomic syndromes. The surgical approach is best from the posterior, high thoracoplasty, muscle-splitting incision, performing neurolysis of the C7, C8, and T1 nerve roots and the brachial plexus as well as release of any vascular constriction.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Harold C. Urschel, Amit Patel. 2003. Thoracic Outlet Syndromes.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-003-0024-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗