Thoracic outlet syndrome, a group of diverse disorders, is a collection of symptoms in the shoulder and upper extremity area that results in pain, numbness, and tingling. Identification of thoracic outlet syndrome is complex and a thorough clinical examination in addition to appropriate clinical testing can aide in diagnosis. Practitioners must consider the pathology of thoracic outlet syndrome in their differential diagnosis for shoulder and upper extremity pain symptoms so that patients are directed appropriately to timely therapeutic interventions. Patients with a definitive etiology who have failed conservative management are ideal candidates for surgical correction. This manuscript will discuss thoracic outlet syndrome, occurrence, physical presentation, clinical implications, diagnosis, and management.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

All right hepatic lobe (RHL) donors in our program are asked to participate in a longitudinal quality-of-life study that begins at their evaluation and continues throughout the first postdonation year. Here we report the characteristics of donor candidates who completed the donation process despite ambivalence. In all, 183 RHL candidates consented, and 133 became donors. Ambivalent donors (ADs; n ¼ 45) identified themselves through verbal statements or written comments, or they were identified by staff during the evaluation. ADs were predominantly male (73.3%), were older than unambivalent donors (UADs; >35 years: 76% of ADs versus 53% of UADs, P ¼ 0.008), and were well educated (college graduate: 60% of ADs versus 17% of UADs, P ¼ 0.01). Brother-to-brother and son-to-father combinations were most common among ADs. Alcohol (22% versus 11%, P ¼ 0.04) and hepatitis C virus (51% versus 27%, P ¼ 0.008) were more common as disease etiologies for recipients with ADs versus recipients with UADs. More ADs than UADs considered themselves to be religious (68.9% versus 43.2%, P ¼ 0.007). Ambivalence about RHL donation was present in 33.8% of the candidates who completed the donation process. These results suggest that ambivalence should not be the sole reason for disqualifying a potential donor who otherwise satisfies program requirements.