[Feasibility and limits of clinical neurophysiology with regard to the objective evaluation of neurological consequences following accidents]

Versicherungsmedizin. 2014 Sep 1;66(3):132-6.
[Article in German]

Abstract

It is not unusual for a neurological expert to have problems defining the precise anatomical location and the required objective proof of damage, especially if the medical history and the neurological report released by the clinic prove inadequate in terms of providing a reliable assessment. This may well result from somatoform disorders, dissociation, aggravation and simulation, as well as dissimulation and complex organic diagnostic findings. A range of standardised neurophysiologic procedures is available for the objective measuring of motor, vegetative and sensory systems; a brief summary of the most frequent occurrences is given here, along with their significance for appraising damage resulting from an accident. Target groups primarily include surgeons, orthopaedists, lawyers and insurance specialists. Structural improvements and measures to integrate immigrant doctors is essential.

Publication types

  • English Abstract
  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Accidents / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Diagnosis, Differential
  • Disability Evaluation
  • Electroencephalography / methods
  • Electromyography / methods
  • Evoked Potentials, Auditory / physiology
  • Evoked Potentials, Motor / physiology
  • Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory / physiology
  • Evoked Potentials, Visual / physiology
  • Expert Testimony / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Humans
  • Neural Conduction / physiology
  • Neurologic Examination / methods*
  • Neurophysiology / methods*
  • Reaction Time / physiology
  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  • Trauma, Nervous System / diagnosis*
  • Trauma, Nervous System / physiopathology*