ライフサイエンスコーパス: upper extremity

1 ad, face, neck, thorax, spine, and lower and upper extremity).

2 movements with the proximal sections of the upper extremity.

3 t of musculoskeletal disorders of the distal upper extremity.

4 ents with mild motor impairment of the right upper extremity.

5 ion) innervating the contralateral (resting) upper extremity.

6 neck, thorax, abdomen, lower extremity, and upper extremity.

7 s which worsened to involve the entire right upper extremity.

8 carrying information from the contralateral upper extremity.

9 on should preferentially affect the head and upper extremity.

10 At least 1 PIVC insertion on the upper extremity.

11 are cause of infectious tenosynovitis of the upper extremity.

12 or placebo into the tremulous muscles of the upper extremity.

13 ks, followed by patchy muscle paresis in the upper extremity.

14 d local pain or functional impairment of the upper extremity.

15 e implications for the rehabilitation of the upper extremity.

16 ations of PNBs for outpatient surgery of the upper extremity.

17 ble with regards to procedures of the distal upper extremity.

18 by vigorous activity or extensive use of the upper extremity.

19 ial reactivity differs between the lower and upper extremities.

20 reduced arterial reactivity in lower but not upper extremities.

21 ed by a phenotype that is more severe in the upper extremities.

22 rized by congenital defects in the heart and upper extremities.

23 ions for a permanent vascular access in both upper extremities.

24 thrombosis associated with a catheter in the upper extremities.

25 ) lymphography and lymphoscintigraphy of the upper extremities.

26 ements in fluid balance and lean mass in the upper extremities.

27 It is commonly found on the trunk and upper extremities.

28 nd during moderate intensity exercise of the upper extremities.

29 wheelchair places significant strain on the upper extremities.

30 ifference in systolic blood pressure between upper extremities.

31 inly by a postural and kinetic tremor of the upper extremities.

32 llowing the appearance of new macules on her upper extremities.

33 (-0.36 (-0.71, -0.01)), PROMIS Mobility and Upper Extremity (0.05 (-0.08, 0.19); -0.04 (-0.24, 0.17)

34 motor recovery of upper and lower extremity (upper extremity: 0.15 [0.06-0.24], GRADE=high; lower ext

35 mity (58%) than visceral-mesenteric (31%) or upper extremity (10%).

36 % occurring on the head and neck, 32% on the upper extremities, 16% on the trunk, 9% at unknown sites

37 ied as carotid (53%), lower extremity (41%), upper extremity (3%), and aortic disease (33%).

38 r times (face, 41.0 vs 61.0 days [P = .001]; upper extremities, 46.0 vs 69.0 days [P = .003]).

39 20.7%), lower extremity (48/77, 62.3%), and upper extremity (5/77, 6.4%).

40 wed by the lower extremity (99 [24.6%]), the upper extremity (71 [17.6%]), and the head and neck (32

41 For the face and upper extremities, a significantly higher percentage of

42 However, alternate upper extremity access such as distal radial and ulnar a

43 hanical circulatory support via percutaneous upper-extremity access.

44 o mediating movements in the face, neck, and upper extremity accompanying medial temporal lobe seizur

45 c compensation to functional recovery of the upper extremity after a unilateral brain lesion.

46 n robot-assisted neurorehabilitation for the upper extremity aimed primarily at training, reaching mo

47 pha arm, and one disease progression-related upper extremity amputation in the melphalan-alone arm.

48 he plasticity of the primary motor cortex in upper-extremities amputees and to determine if the acqui

49 xpert radiologists in three out of the seven upper extremity anatomical regions with a leading perfor

50 rmic MP with an acellular perfusate in human upper extremities and compare with the current gold stan

51 Deep tendon reflexes were absent in the upper extremities and decreased in the lower extremities

52 racterized by a stellate ulceration over the upper extremities and reported association with neuromus

53 linical Frailty Scale, Neuro-Quality of Life Upper Extremity and Lower Extremity Function, Neuro-Qual

54 Those are the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity and Lower Extremity scales, Wolf Motor F

55 aim to improve motor function for use of the upper extremity and walking are traditionally separated

56 ents who sustained penetrating trauma to the upper extremity and who underwent CT angiography based o

57 superficial veins, typically in the lower or upper extremities, and has an estimated annual incidence

58 ng pain (neck and/or upper back, lower back, upper extremities, and lower extremities), unhealthy lif

59 ty, cervical nodes draining both the ear and upper extremity, and sentinel lymph nodes draining diffe

60 ices focused on motor rehabilitation for the upper extremity, and the approach presented here may fac

61 Evaluation of the technical quality of the upper extremity angiograms demonstrated mean attenuation

62 er extremity (AOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7) and upper extremity (AOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0) mobility dif

63 probe monitoring of comparable sites in both upper extremities appears to be an effective preventive

64 Participants were randomized 1:1 between the upper-extremity approach (radial artery diagnostic acces

65 An upper-extremity approach for secondary access during tra

66 f patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, the upper-extremity approach for secondary access was associ

67 hatic anatomy and functional drainage of the upper extremities are not consistently symmetric.

68 US assessment of the upper extremity arterial and venous anatomy was performe

69 e arterial lumen of multiple segments of the upper extremity arteries.

70 nts with new or restenotic lesions in native upper-extremity arteriovenous fistulas were eligible for

71 giography were performed in 10 patients with upper extremity autogenous fistulas.

72 wed lower extremities are more affected than upper extremities (average fat z scores of 2.1 and 0.6,

73 se 1 randomized trial in patients undergoing upper extremity AVF placement was performed to evaluate

74 Patients with upper-extremity AVF and AVG can face a number of access-

75 formed in patients before LVA surgery in the upper extremities between October 2019 and September 202

76 es (40 ml) of local with ultrasound-directed upper extremity blockade.

77 nction to people with paralysis, but current upper extremity brain-machine interfaces are unable to r

78 ill training and robotic devices and for the upper extremity by constraint-induced therapy, robotics,

79 Evaluation of the upper extremities can be more challenging and requires a

80 surgery reduces overall OR time by 4 min per upper extremity case.

81 s 26.5% among men (112 of 422), and 63.9% of upper extremity cases among women (205 of 321) were seco

82 axillary nodes draining both the breast and upper extremity, cervical nodes draining both the ear an

83 were used to determine change in ipsilateral upper extremity circumference and to control for baselin

84 -55.0] minutes; P = .002) were higher in the upper-extremity cohort.

85 Rotator cuff tears are the most common upper extremity condition seen by primary care and ortho

86 termination of the side of the body on which upper extremity contrast material injection was performe

87 Thus, distal upper extremity control influenced by LPMC, including gr

88 Upper extremity CT angiograms obtained with 64-section C

89 ccurrence, the characterization of pediatric upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT) and of UE

90 ography has not been evaluated for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT).

91 Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) occurs spon

92 itation therapy for the treatment of chronic upper extremity deficits after ischaemic stroke.

93 a wide spectrum of ipsilateral thoracic and upper extremity deformities.

94 bral palsy (UCP), classically focused on the upper extremity despite the frequent impairment of gross

95 udies are needed in the area of work-related upper extremity disorders.

96 mized clinical trial, 30 adult patients with upper-extremity DT treated at a movement disorder clinic

97 or to placebo in reducing tremor severity in upper-extremity DT.

98 Forty-one patients with acute upper extremity DVT and contraindications to or unsucces

99 d for preventing symptomatic PE due to acute upper extremity DVT in patients in whom therapeutic anti

100 d if they had a history of asymptomatic DVT, upper-extremity DVT, coexisting PE, or COVID-19 infectio

101 Upper-extremity dysfunction was not associated with SPA

102 need for safe and efficacious treatments for upper-extremity dystonic tremor (DT).

103 al effusion (5.5%), facial edema (2.2%), and upper extremity edema (1.3%).

104 ool for identifying lymphatic vessels in the upper extremities, especially when indocyanine green flu

105 of unknown etiology of the head and neck or upper extremity, even in the absence of focal neurologic

106 trasonography of their lower extremities and upper extremities every 7 days.

107 Upper extremity exercise is associated with a significan

108 ed to active motor tasks, contributing to an upper extremity flexion bias following stroke.

109 rm, indicating 2.3 less change in Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FM-UE) points in the VNS group relative

110 ional recovery rule for the Fugl-Meyer motor upper extremity (FM-UE) scale.

111 stent motor deficit, defined as a Fugl-Meyer Upper-Extremity (FM-UE) score of 54 or lower (out of 66)

112 0 years), and baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score (20-35 vs 36-50).

113 tcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Upper Extremity (FMA-UE).

114 or impairment (total and proximal Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity, FMUE, scores) were analyzed.

115 plasticity in humans, we casted the dominant upper extremity for 2 weeks and tracked changes in funct

116 cally suspected peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremity from November 2015 to February 2022.

117 Motor impairment as indexed by the Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer assessment was significantly

118 ments on the Action Research Arm Test or the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer score (both P > 0.5).

119 irst-ever ischemic stroke patients using the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UE-FM) Scale to measure moto

120 ed on CST integrity which is estimated using upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) scores.

121 ince stroke, with a median improvement of 15 Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment points.

122 ting a seven-point median improvement on the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment.

123 Mice administered gabapentin recovered upper extremity function after cervical SCI.

124 replacement have advanced and provide better upper extremity function after scapula resection than re

125 cord injury (SCI) causes devastating loss of upper extremity function and independence.

126 red putative non-linear interactions between upper extremity function and use by developing a first-o

127 ain some hand and wrist movement can improve upper extremity function that persists for at least 1 ye

128 Upper extremity function was evaluated with the validate

129 specific rehabilitation therapy can improve upper extremity function.

130 1 h or 1 day after stroke recovered skilled upper extremity function.

131 d a simultaneous execution of a sensor-based upper-extremity function (UEF) motor task (normal or rap

132 of the SPA is not associated with a loss of upper-extremity function after transradial catheterizati

133 produce marked and sustained improvements in upper-extremity function in children with perinatal stro

134 Upper-extremity function was assessed at baseline and 2-

135 worse scores on patient-reported measures of upper extremity functional limitation and mental health

136 multivariate analyses, greater preoperative upper extremity functional limitation was predictive of

137 the 3 principal outcomes (symptom severity, upper extremity functional limitations, and satisfaction

138 he questionnaires assessed symptom severity, upper extremity functional limitations, mental health, g

139 ot associated independently with measures of upper extremity functioning.

140 ended to be higher for thigh grafts than for upper extremity grafts (11.1 versus 5.2%; P = 0.07).

141 e as high for thigh grafts, as compared with upper extremity grafts (12.7 versus 5.8%; P = 0.046).

142 permanent failure) was similar for thigh and upper extremity grafts (median, 14.8 versus 20.8 mo; P =

143 tion-free survival was similar for thigh and upper extremity grafts (median, 3.9 versus 3.5 mo; P = 0

144 e survival was also comparable for thigh and upper extremity grafts (median, 5.7 versus 5.5 mo; P = 0

145 was 27.6 mo for thigh grafts and 22.5 mo for upper extremity grafts (P = 0.72).

146 1.70 per year) was similar between thigh and upper extremity grafts.

147 cally relevant bleeding was decreased in the upper-extremity group (25 of 119 [21.0%] vs 41 of 119 [3

148 occurred in 5 of 119 patients (4.2%) in the upper-extremity group and 16 of 119 (13.4%) in the lower

149 with the transplantation of face, bilateral upper extremities, heart, 1 lung, liver (split for 2 rec

150 an optimal therapy for a stroke patient with upper extremity hemiparesis, we propose a cortico-basal

151 Upper extremity hemiplegia is a common consequence of un

152 ing impairment (OR,1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.87); upper extremity impairment (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.05-2.05)

153 spheric FC was significantly correlated with upper extremity impairment (Pearson r with contralesiona

154 nts with motor stroke and primarily moderate upper extremity impairment, use of a structured, task-or

155 nts with motor stroke and primarily moderate upper extremity impairment.

156 49 [63.3%] vs 22 of 49 [44.9%]), more severe upper-extremity impairment (Shoulder Abduction Finger Ex

157 h persistent (1-3 years), moderate-to-severe upper-extremity impairment.

158 Using a rat model of upper extremity impairments after ischemic stroke, we ex

159 ity and cortical lesions had the most severe upper extremity impairments, particularly somatosensory

160 upling in proximal and distal muscles of the upper extremities in nine patients with multifocal high

161 ro- and macrocirculation of the nonexercised upper extremity in type 1 diabetic patients.

162 head and neck injuries, 1.48 (1.38-1.58) for upper extremity injuries, 1.11 (1.01-1.21) for back inju

163 for orthopedic intervention in patients with upper extremity involvement and recent methods to contro

164 manifest angina elicited by exercise of the upper extremity ipsilateral to the graft and stenosis (s

165 treatment, but improvements to knowledge of upper extremity lymphatic anatomy and imaging can unlock

166 pants, 10 (28%) showed symmetry of all eight upper extremity lymphatic pathways with ICG.

167 s for LVA surgery in patients with secondary upper extremity lymphedema and compare the results with

168 All patients had secondary upper extremity lymphedema from breast cancer treatment.

169 nger, closer to the time of surgery, or have upper extremity lymphedema may be less likely to undergo

170 ter period of time since surgery, and having upper extremity lymphedema were associated with lower ma

171 disorder characterized by facial dysmorphia, upper-extremity malformations, hirsutism, cardiac defect

172 Data regarding upper extremity midline catheter (MC)-related thrombosis

173 In this study, upper extremity moles, a higher ability to achieve a tan

174 p pinch force, hand prehension and strength, upper extremity motor and sensory abilities and self-rep

175 nical practice for patients with stroke with upper extremity motor deficits.

176 fects of unilateral and bilateral STN DBS on upper extremity motor function and cognitive performance

177 Upper extremity motor function improved significantly in

178 ry outcome measure was the rate of change in upper extremity motor function measured by the maximum v

179 Nerve transfers to reanimate upper extremity motor function with target reinnervation

180 hs before enrolment and had mild-to-moderate upper extremity motor impairment, non-immersive virtual

181 The primary outcome was upper extremity motor performance measured by total time

182 Neurological Classification of SCI (ISNCSCI) Upper Extremity Motor Score (UEMS) at day 169 for all en

183 distinct outcome categories with a validated upper extremity motor score (UEMS) prediction model base

184 (SD) differences in change from baseline in upper extremity motor scores (34.95 [3.25] vs 32.95 [3.6

185 tional photothrombotic approach for modeling upper-extremity motor impairments extends to the artery-

186 A Impairment Scale (AIS) grade and change in upper-extremity motor, lower-extremity motor, light touc

187 ning interlimb differences in the control of upper extremity movements in neurotypical adults and hem

188 tic computational model of three-dimensional upper extremity movements that reproduces well-known fea

189 MRI and (1)H MR spectroscopy; and correlate upper extremity MRI and (1)H MR spectroscopy measures to

190 To demonstrate the feasibility of acquiring upper extremity MRI and proton ((1)H) MR spectroscopy me

191 Background Upper extremity MRI and proton MR spectroscopy are incre

192 or diagnosing peripheral neuropathies of the upper extremity, MRN achieved higher accuracy and sensit

193 ry behaviors, facilitating the prevention of upper extremity MSDs.

194 strated early and progressive involvement of upper extremity muscles in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (

195 innervation patterns in proximal and distal upper extremity muscles in humans.

196 ons may indicate upregulation for particular upper extremity muscles or their functional actions.

197 slowly progresses to involve other lower and upper extremities' muscles, with marked sparing of the q

198 ies and conservative treatments for selected upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions for evidence

199 l modalities and conservative treatments for upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions, there is a s

200 The prevention of work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs; e.g., n

201 The prevalence of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders, such as tendi

202 to relieve neurologic (n = 85) and/or right upper extremity (n = 26) symptoms or asymptomatic critic

203 pitals with at least 1 PIVC insertion on the upper extremity (N = 371 061) between January 1, 2016, a

204 n = 1), orbitofacial (n = 33), neck (n = 8), upper extremity (n = 7), lower extremity (n = 4), intrat

205 s with end-stage renal disease and ischemia, upper extremity (n = 8) or lower extremity (n = 3) arter

206 observed; mild adverse events included left upper extremity neurapraxia (n = 1) and transient Horner

207 er, given that the method was only tested on upper extremities of a veteran population, further testi

208 geyella species from acute cellulitis in the upper extremity of a 60-year-old woman.

209 ed with the head/neck and trunk but not with upper extremity or lower extremity anatomical locations.

210 ility of physical examination for diagnosing upper extremity or neck venous thrombosis.

211 or the analysis included diagnosis of trunk, upper extremity, or lower extremity melanoma; known Bres

212 Rotator cuff tears are the most common upper extremity orthopaedic injury, causing degenerative

213 sis in a clinically relevant rodent model of upper extremity overuse injury.

214 t it is unknown whether people with profound upper extremity paralysis or limb loss could use cortica

215 ve case series, adults with cervical SCI and upper extremity paralysis whose recovery plateaued were

216 Eighty-five adults with upper extremity paresis >/=6 months poststroke were rand

217 iddle cerebral artery infarction, leading to upper extremity paresis, paresthesia, and sensory loss.

218 descending axons often causes contralateral upper extremity paresis.

219 presentation (which began with vomiting and upper extremity paresthesias and progressed to fever, se

220 Neither left-right laterality bias among upper extremity PGs nor anterior-posterior bias among tr

221 imb reductions were fitted with a 3D printed upper extremity prosthesis for their affected limb.

222 e deep vein thrombosis in both the lower and upper extremities, pulmonary embolism, and mortality.

223 tes in the lower extremity and 1 site in the upper extremity (radial head) were evaluated and compare

224 s for patients without hemorrhage were 0.74 (upper extremities; range, 0-1) and 0.55 (lower extremiti

225 d predominantly to the location to which the upper extremity reached, and the second related to the o

226 eous recovery is an important determinant of upper extremity recovery after stroke and has been descr

227 r (M1) and lateral premotor (LPMC) cortices, upper extremity recovery is accompanied by terminal axon

228 entifically warrant changing the practice of upper extremity regional?

229 ilateral training as a potential therapy for upper extremity rehabilitation in hemiparetic stroke.

230 either an equivalent or a lower dose of UCC upper extremity rehabilitation.

231 unusual sites such as cerebral, splanchnic, upper-extremity, renal, ovarian, or retinal veins.

232 y, spanning both the proximal and the distal upper extremity representation in caudal M1.

233 -grasp movements in the primary motor cortex upper extremity representation, we implanted four microe

234 manifested muscle weakness in the lower and upper extremities, resembling mice lacking the farnesyla

235 was delivered using an inflatable cuff on 1 upper extremity (RIC cuff pressure, <=200 mm Hg [n = 749

236 0.08-0.15), and having disabling pain in the upper extremities (risk ratio [RR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1

237 nts before receiving 3 weeks of standardized upper extremity robotic therapy.

238 rimary trial end point (change in Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score from baseline to end of 6 weeks of

239 al disability) and Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity score of 10 to 45 (higher scores indicat

240 ischaemic stroke and a motor deficit of the upper extremity score of 3 or more (measured with the Ch

241 , time since stroke, and baseline Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score).

242 outcome was change in Fugl-Meyer Assessment, upper-extremity score (FMA-UE) from baseline to the firs

243 ter after visceral-mesenteric than lower- or upper-extremity SEE (55%, 17%, and 9%, respectively, P</

244 t achieved independent standing with minimal upper extremity self-balance assistance, independent ste

245 ve a programme of structured, task-oriented, upper extremity sessions (ten sessions, 60 min each) of

246 ssed with the use of the validated Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurem

247 hemodialysis patients who have exhausted all upper extremity sites for permanent vascular access.

248 selective medium to culture both lower- and upper-extremity skin from a study group of podiatry pati

249 Upper extremity strength on admission inversely correlat

250 maging studies are crucial steps to identify upper extremity stress injuries in the pediatric populat

251 strategies to evaluate and manage pediatric upper extremity stress injuries related to overuse with

252 shops on topics relevant to older adults and upper extremity stretching exercises.

253 ogram (n = 817) of educational workshops and upper-extremity stretching.

254 for the management of acute pain after minor upper extremity surgeries increases overall opioid use w

255 ts undergoing brachial plexus anesthesia for upper extremity surgery reduces overall OR time by 4 min

256 egional anesthesia has numerous benefits for upper extremity surgery such as improved analgesia, opio

257 hronic pain such as brachial plexopathy from upper extremity suspension or lumbosacral plexus injury

258 In contrast with lower extremity SuVT, upper extremity SuVT is primarily caused by indwelling i

259 e of even a low repetition, negligible force upper extremity task for 3 months can induce mild periph

260 plex are increasingly reported as a cause of upper extremity tenosynovitis, often in association with

261 n speed and accuracy within a more practical upper-extremity test (instead of walking) may provide en

262 Current upper-extremity therapies provide inconsistent outcomes

263 days of high-dose, child-centered intensive upper-extremity therapy.

264 rsus 0.58%), infection (1.34% versus 3.07%), upper extremity thrombosis (0.77% versus 0.96%), pulmona

265 nts developed clinical evidence of PE due to upper extremity thrombosis or superior vena cava syndrom

266 red in one patient, and two others developed upper-extremity thrombosis associated with venous infusi

267 Subject 5 had upper extremity tonic movements.

268 Structured, task-oriented upper extremity training (Accelerated Skill Acquisition

269 Here, we present a case report of an upper extremity transplant recipient with trauma-induced

270 the psychosocial evaluation and outcomes of upper extremity transplant recipients: required domains

271 DSA and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in upper extremity transplantation (UET) remains to be esta

272 erfusion injury remains a primary concern in upper extremity transplantation.

273 We present our experience with upper-extremity transplantation under a novel, donor bon

274 tocol is safe, is well tolerated, and allows upper-extremity transplantation using low-dose tacrolimu

275 Psychiatric complications in upper extremity transplanted patients have been reported

276 qualified anatomical sites (face, scalp, and upper extremities) twice daily for 4 consecutive days.

277 Individuals with upper extremity (UE) amputation abandon prostheses due t

278 nce incomplete recoveries, leaving them with upper extremity (UE) deficits affecting their long-term

279 After stroke, upper extremity (UE) motor recovery may be mediated in p

280 ance imaging (MRI) and its relationship with upper-extremity (UE) motor function in patients post str

281 tion for clinical application of concomitant upper extremity (UExt) and face transplantation, we aime

282 Upper extremity vascular access surgery using polytetraf

283 Upper extremity vascular insufficiency dominated the cli

284 However, the relationship of lower versus upper extremity vasoreactivity to increasing cardiovascu

285 ate rating scale, kinematic analyses of peak upper extremity velocity, positron emission tomography i

286 All patients underwent bilateral upper-extremity venography.

287 Spasticity in the upper extremities was seen in 64%.

288 ral automatisms and dystonic posturing of an upper extremity was analysed separately.

289 slope of EIM phase ratio trajectories in the upper extremity was observed by 6 months of -0.074/month

290 with dysarthria, gait ataxia, and bilateral upper extremity weakness.

291 Six upper extremities were assigned to either MP (n = 3) or

292 Ten upper extremities were harvested from the nonembalmed ca

293 Upper extremities were imaged separately with at least t

294 th >2% body surface area involvement of both upper extremities were recruited from the Albuquerque, N

295 tasks in promoting the flexed posture of the upper extremity were assessed.

296 Eight collecting vessel pathways of each upper extremity were mapped on ICG lymphography.

297 trast medium through a plastic cannula in an upper extremity were retrospectively reviewed.

298 Early motor involvement of the contralateral upper extremity without oral automatisms occurred in thr

299 [HR], 1.097; 95% CI, 0.950-1.267; P = .21), upper extremity (WLE HR, 1.013; 95% CI, 0.872-1.176; P =

300 were not identified at multidetector CT (six upper extremity wounds and four thigh wounds).