Writer's cramp: is focal dystonia the best explanation?

JRSM short reports Pub Date : 2013-06-05 Print Date: 2013-07-01 DOI:10.1177/2042533313480071
Michael H Pritchard
{"title":"Writer's cramp: is focal dystonia the best explanation?","authors":"Michael H Pritchard","doi":"10.1177/2042533313480071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Often considered no more than an historical curiosity, writer's cramp remains an important disability in the workplace and the mechanism, which has puzzled the best medical minds for generations, remains contentious. A remarkable range of hypotheses has been put forward to try and explain a disability which periodically reached epidemic and economically worrying levels, but in the end medical opinion has accepted the explanation put forward by neurologists Sheehy and Marsden in 1983 that this was caused by a form of focal dystonia. However, the majority of the historical descriptions of writer's cramp do not fit the classical parameters of focal dystonia and are more accurately described as a progressive forearm muscle fatigue. Today's keyboard operators continue to complain of symptoms identical to their clerical forebears demonstrating that this is a problem which has evolved but not disappeared; this has the paradoxical advantage that modern research techniques enable this complaint to be revisited. The result shows that two varieties of writer's cramp have always existed and while focal dystonia remains a valid explanation for a minority of cases, the much more common fatigue-based complaint is better explained by chronic compartment syndrome of the forearm. </p>","PeriodicalId":89182,"journal":{"name":"JRSM short reports","volume":"4 7","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2042533313480071","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM short reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2042533313480071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Often considered no more than an historical curiosity, writer's cramp remains an important disability in the workplace and the mechanism, which has puzzled the best medical minds for generations, remains contentious. A remarkable range of hypotheses has been put forward to try and explain a disability which periodically reached epidemic and economically worrying levels, but in the end medical opinion has accepted the explanation put forward by neurologists Sheehy and Marsden in 1983 that this was caused by a form of focal dystonia. However, the majority of the historical descriptions of writer's cramp do not fit the classical parameters of focal dystonia and are more accurately described as a progressive forearm muscle fatigue. Today's keyboard operators continue to complain of symptoms identical to their clerical forebears demonstrating that this is a problem which has evolved but not disappeared; this has the paradoxical advantage that modern research techniques enable this complaint to be revisited. The result shows that two varieties of writer's cramp have always existed and while focal dystonia remains a valid explanation for a minority of cases, the much more common fatigue-based complaint is better explained by chronic compartment syndrome of the forearm.

Abstract Image

作家痉挛:局灶性肌张力障碍是最好的解释吗?
作家痉挛通常被认为只是一种历史上的奇怪现象,它仍然是工作场所的一种重要残疾,其机制一直困扰着几代最优秀的医学头脑,至今仍存在争议。人们提出了一系列的假设,试图解释这种周期性达到流行病和经济上令人担忧的水平的残疾,但最终医学观点接受了神经学家希伊和马斯登在1983年提出的解释,即这是由局灶性肌张力障碍引起的。然而,大多数对writer抽筋的历史描述不符合局灶性肌张力障碍的经典参数,而更准确地描述为进行性前臂肌肉疲劳。今天的键盘操作员继续抱怨与他们的文职祖先相同的症状,这表明这是一个已经发展但没有消失的问题;这有一个自相矛盾的好处,即现代研究技术使这种抱怨得以重新审视。结果表明,两种类型的作家痉挛一直存在,虽然局灶性肌张力障碍仍然是少数病例的有效解释,但更常见的基于疲劳的投诉可以更好地解释为前臂的慢性筋膜室综合征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信