Ultrasonography (US) has become a first-line modality for the evaluation of the peripheral nerves of the upper extremity. The benefits of US over magnetic resonance (MR) imaging include higher soft-tissue resolution, cost effectiveness, portability, real-time and dynamic imaging, and the ability to scan an entire extremity quickly and efficiently. US can be performed on patients who are not eligible for MR imaging. Metallic implant artifacts are usually not problematic. US has been shown to have equal specificity and greater sensitivity than MR imaging in the evaluation of peripheral nerves. Any abnormal findings can be easily compared with the contralateral side. The published literature has shown that US has demonstrated clinical utility in patients with suspected peripheral nerve disease by guiding diagnostic and therapeutic decisions as well as by confirming electrodiagnostic findings. Common indications for upper extremity peripheral nerve US are the evaluation for injury due to penetrating trauma, entrapment by scar tissue, and tumor. US of the upper extremity is most commonly performed to evaluate carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. It is important for the radiologist or sonographer to have a detailed knowledge of anatomy and specific anatomic landmarks for each nerve to efficiently and accurately perform an examination. The goal of this article is to introduce readers to the basics of US of the peripheral nerves of the upper extremity with a focus on the median, ulnar, and radial nerves. Common sites of disease and the location of important anatomic landmarks will be reviewed.

Objective-We examined the impact of C-reactive protein (CRP) on vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) expression of tissue factor (TF) and TF pathway inhibitor (TFPI

No abstract

Heller myotomy (HM) is widely recognized as the most effective treatment of achalasia. Although effective in improving dysphagia symptoms, HM is associated with reflux. Over a five-year period, 63 laparoscopic HM were performed. Patients underwent myotomy alone or HM plus reconstitution of the angle of His without any fundoplication, anterior, or posterior partial fundoplication. Two postoperative outcomes were examined: dysphagia and reflux. Twenty-two patients received no fundoplication (34.9%). Forty-one (65.1%) antireflux procedures were performed, including 21 reconstitutions of the angle of His (33.3%), nine (14.3%) anterior fundoplications, and 11 (17.5%) posterior fundoplications. All patients demonstrated preoperative dysphagia. Postoperative dysphagia was present in 23 of 63 (36.5%). Of these, 13 (56.5%) patients had an antireflux procedure, whereas 28 of 40 who had an antireflux procedure (70%) had no postoperative dysphagia (P = 0.28). Thirty-nine of 62 (62.9%) had symptomatic esophageal reflux preoperatively, and postoperative reflux was reported in 22 of 63 (34.9%). Reflux was present in 72.7 per cent of patients who had an antireflux procedure versus 61 per cent of those without the addition of an antireflux procedure (P = 0.415). However, HM independently improved reflux status regardless of whether an antireflux procedure was performed using the exact McNemar's test (P = 0.0014). Although the performance of an antireflux procedure did not appear to alter the reflux status after HM for achalasia, neither was it associated with postoperative dysphagia. More importantly, HM was independently associated with an improvement of reflux symptoms regardless of the type of antireflux procedure performed or whether one was used or not.