4.4 Review

Nailfold capillaroscopy: tips and challenges

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 3629-3640

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06354-1

关键词

Blood flow; Challenges; Connective tissue disease; Microangiopathy; Musculoskeletal diseases; Nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC); Raynaud's phenomenon; Standards; Systemic sclerosis; Tips

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of familiarity with nailfold capillaroscopy technique and interpretation of its outcomes has hindered its utilization in standard clinical practice. However, as a non-invasive technique, nailfold capillaroscopy holds great potential as an outcome measure in research and for identifying underlying connective tissue diseases.
Although nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC) appears to have a bright future in clinical practice, the lack of familiarity with the technique and how to interpret its outcomes is major barriers which have made nailfold capillaroscopy an underutilized method in standard clinical practice. Traditional methods for assessment and measurement of capillary patterns, density, and blood flow are falling behind and face some challenges. In fact, there have been calls for improvement, hence the recent publication of the standardization of NFC by the EULAR Study Group on Microcirculation in Rheumatic Diseases. Nailfold capillaroscopy has the advantage of being a non-invasive technique that provides a window into the digital microcirculation. This paved the way for a rapidly growing interest in using capillaroscopy parameters as outcome measures in research. In standard clinical practice, whilst its main application is in the identification of an underlying systemic sclerosis spectrum disorder in patients presenting with Raynaud's phenomenon, its use has expanded to include other clinical features possibly suggestive of an underlying connective tissue disease. This article presents the challenges, provides tips, and highlights the exciting potential of nailfold capillaroscopy in standard practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据