02372nas a2200193   4500000000100000008004100001653001200042653002300054653001600077653002500093653001000118100001200128700001300140245011400153856008500267300001200352490000700364520180700371       2017                            d10aleprosy10aGrade 2 disability10aUlnar palsy10aPost-elimination era10aIndia1 aNair PP1 aMathew R00aGrade 2 disability in leprosy: Scenario in the post-elimination phase of leprosy from a tertiary care center.  uhttp://www.ijl.org.in/2017/2%20S%20Pradeep%20Nair%20&%20Metthews%20(127-137).pdf  a127-1370 v893 a<p>Grade 2 disabilities and varying grades of motor function impairment are still being encountered in the postelimination phase of leprosy in India. This is a retrospective descriptive study done in the Urban Leprosy Center of Govt Medical College, Thiruvanthapuram (Kerala), a Tertiary Care Institute. Three hundred and eightynine cases of leprosy reported to this centre and were diagnosed (n=389) in the post elimination phase (2006-2015) of which 103 cases were having grade 2 disabilities, thus accounting for a prevalence of 26.48% and 635 cases in the pre-elimination phase (1996-2005) comprising of 106 cases with grade 2 disability thus accounting for a prevalence of 16.70% at same centre. The male/female ratio of the cases with grade 2 disability in the post-elimination phase was 5.87 : 1. The age group 31-40 accounted for the maximum number of cases with grade 2 disability (27/103, 26.21%). Lepra reactions (both Type 1 and 2) were present in 31 of the grade 2 disability cases (30.1%). Borderline tuberculoid (BT) was the commonest type of leprosy, 50 cases (48.54%) with grade 2 disability in the post-elimination phase. Ulnar palsy, 63 cases (49.61%) accounted for the commonest type of grade 2 disability in the post-elimination phase. There was a statistically significant increase in the prevalence of grade 2 disability cases in the post-elimination phase (<em>P</em>&lt;0.001). Multiple disabilities involving 2 or more trunks were more common in smear positive cases (<em>P </em>= 0.003). The prevalence of lepra reactions was low in this series. Though these figures may and may not reflect the true magnitude of problem at community level, this should be considered as warning sign of delayed reporting/diagnosis and should be carefully investigated in the population.</p>