Flexed elbow, abducted shoulder, forearm supinated (FABS) reconstruction from three-dimensional elbow MRI: diagnostic performance assessment in biceps head anatomy and pathology.

AIM: To determine inter-reader analysis and diagnostic performance on digitally reconstructed virtual flexed, abducted, supinated (FABS) imaging from three-dimensional (3D) isotropic elbow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six musculoskeletal radiologists independently evaluated elbow MRI images with virtual FABS reconstructions, blinded to clinical findings and final diagnoses. Each radiologist recorded a binary result as to whether the tendon was intact and if both heads were visible, along with a categorical value to the type of tear and extent of retraction in centimetres where applicable. Kappa and interclass correlation (ICC) were reported with 95% confidence intervals. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) were reported. RESULTS: FABS reconstructions were obtained successfully in all 48 cases. With respect to tendon intactness, visibility of both heads, and type of tear, the Kappa values were 0.66 (0.53-0.78), 0.24 (0.12-0.37), and 0.55 (0.43-0.66), respectively. For the extent of retraction, the ICC was 0.85 (0.79-0.91) when including the tendons with and without retraction and 0.78 (0.61-0.91) when only including tendons with retraction. For tear versus no tear, AUC values were 0.82 (0.74-0.89) to 0.96 (0.91-1.01). CONCLUSION: Digital reconstruction of FABS positioning is feasible and allows good assessment of individual tendon head tears and retraction with high diagnostic performance.

[The difference in writing disorders in primary agraphia and congenital dyslexia and their clinical relevance]. / Uber den Unterschied der Schreibstörungen bei primärer Agraphie und kongenitaler Legasthenie und dessen klinische Relevanz.

If after a brain injury reading and writing disturbances persist, the question is: primary agraphia or writing disorders due to dyslexia? If the anamnesis cannot answer this question, a decision is possible by means of four essential differences between writing disorders on the background of primary agraphia and those associated with dyslexia: 1. Agraphic persons correct their mistakes, dyslectics do not. 2. The word formations (paragraphias) due to primary agraphia do not bear close phonetical resemblances, whereas word formations by dyslectic persons are plainly phonetical. 3. Agraphics persevere, dyslectics do not. 4. In primary agraphia, the patient will also show difficulties in writing numbers; in a dyslectic disorder, he/she will not.

[The elementary school as a cause of criminal development. Dyslexia for example (author's transl)]. / Die Grundschule als Ursache für kriminelle Entwicklungen. Das Beispiel Legasthenie.

The observation of children with singular weaknesses in reading and writing with good scholastic performance in other subjects goes back to the last century. Concrete steps were, however, only taken after insistent clinical publications in the fifties. Most recently, bureaucratic decisions on school matters hinder the assistance to dyslexic children so that the danger of criminal development increases. The psychiatric view of the disease picture and the possibilities of rehabilitation are contrasted with these tendencies, congenital dyscalculia also being briefly discussed.