To Örebro University

Professional electricians are highly subjected to electrical injuries. Previous studies describing symptoms after electrical injury have not included people with less severe initial injuries. The purpose of the present study was to describe symptoms at different time points after electrical injury, the impact of "no-let-go" phenomenon and different electrical potential [high voltage (HV) vs. low voltage (LV)], and the safety culture at the workplace.

A retrospective survey was conducted with 523 Swedish electricians. Two questionnaires were issued: the first to identify electricians who had experienced electrical injury and the second to gain information about symptoms and safety culture. Self-reported symptoms were described at different time points following injury. Symptoms for HV and LV accidents were compared. Occurrence or nonoccurrence of "no-let-go" phenomenon was analysed using two-tailed Chi-2. Safety culture was assessed with a validated questionnaire.

Nearly all reported having symptoms directly after the injury, mainly paraesthesia and pain. For the first weeks after injury, pain and muscle weakness dominated. The most frequently occurring symptoms at follow-up were pain, muscle weakness and loss of sensation. HV injuries and "no-let go" phenomenon were associated with more sustained symptoms. Deficiencies in the reporting routines were present, as well as shortage of preventive measures.

The results indicate that symptoms are reported also long time after an electrical injury and that special attention should be paid to HV injuries and "no-let go" accidents. The workplace routines to reduce the number of work-related electrical injuries for Swedish electricians can be improved.

Purpose: Symptoms described in previous studies indicate that electrical injury can cause longstanding injuries to the neurosensory nerves. The aim of the present case series was to objectively assess the profile of neurosensory dysfunction in electricians in relation to high voltage or low voltage electrical injury and the "no-let-go phenomenon".

Methods: Twenty-three Swedish male electricians exposed to electrical injury were studied by using a battery of clinical instruments, including quantitative sensory testing (QST). The clinical test followed a predetermined order of assessments: thermal perceptions thresholds, vibration perception thresholds, tactile gnosis (the Shape and Texture Identification test), manual dexterity (Purdue Pegboard Test), and grip strength. In addition, pain was studied by means of a questionnaire, and a colour chart was used for estimation of white fingers.

Results: The main findings in the present case series were reduced thermal perceptions thresholds, where half of the group showed abnormal values for warm thermal perception and/or cold thermal perception. Also, the tactile gnosis and manual dexterity were reduced. High voltage injury was associated with more reduced sensibility compared to those with low voltage.

Conclusion: Neurosensory injury can be objectively assessed after an electrical injury by using QST with thermal perception thresholds. The findings are consistent with injuries to small nerve fibres. In the clinical setting thermal perception threshold is therefore recommended, in addition to tests of tactile gnosis and manual dexterity (Purdue Pegboard).

OBJECTIVE: Work related electrical accidents are prevalent and can cause persisting symptoms. We used clinical neurophysiological techniques to assess neurosensory function following electrical accidents and correlated test results with the patients' symptoms.

METHODS: We studied 24 patients who reported persisting neurosensory symptoms following a workplace electrical accident. We assessed nerve function using quantitative sensory testing (QST), thermal roller testing, laser evoked potential (LEP), and electroneurography. The patients' results were compared with previously established normative data.

RESULTS: Altogether, 67% of the patients showed at least one neurosensory impairment with a large heterogeneity in test results across patients. At a group level, we observed significant deviations in in QST, LEP, and sensory and motor neurography. Overall, we found a weak correlation between test results and self-reported symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS: In a majority of patients with neurosensory symptoms after a workplace electrical accident, neurosensory testing confirmed the existence of an underlying impairment of the nervous system.

OBJECTIVE: Electrical accidents cause both acute and long-term injuries. The care of acute injuries is somewhat standardized, but currently recommendations or assessment tools are not available for assessing the long-term effects of an accident on hand function.

METHODS: A case-control study of 24 healthy controls and 24 cases, 1-5 years after an electrical accident and with self-reported neurosensory symptoms, was performed using three hand-function tests: the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Purdue Pegboard test and the Shape and Identification (STI) test.

RESULTS: Compared to the control group, patients received statistically significantly lower scores for the DASH outcome measure and the Purdue Pegboard and for one finger on the STI test.

CONCLUSION: Hand function is affected after an electrical accident in individuals with self-reported neurosensory symptoms.