Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open ; 9(1): e001197, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38510532

RESUMEN

Background: With the increasing prevalence of electric scooters, a concomitant increase in the number of specific injuries, emergency department (ED) admissions and hospital admissions have been reported. Objectives: Analyze patient flow changes in the ED with a focus on e-scooter-related injuries through a case series and a comparison with the contemporary literature. Data sources: A systematic literature review was performed on Medline/PubMed and Embase using terms related to the topic.Data collected from two-wheeled vehicle trauma patients at our Italian ED from May 1 to October 31, 2021, were analyzed for the case series. Study eligibility criteria: Studies were included if they evaluated populations with an e-scooter-related injury referred to the ED with precise localization and nature of the injury reported. Participants and interventions: Data collected from the literature studies and from our case series included overall ED patient numbers, patient demographics, injury mechanism, location of the injury, discharge diagnosis, and performance of surgery. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: All studies were checked in order to establish the coherence with the purposes of this review. Data from the contemporary literature and from this case series were compared. Results: During a 6-month period, 280 patients had e-scooter injuries, resulting in 292 traumas, including 123 fractures, primarily in the elbow. Surgical intervention was necessary for 28 patients. The review included nine papers, highlighting that injuries to the upper and lower extremities and head were frequent in e-scooter-related incidents. The upper extremities were the most common fracture location. Limitations: The study is a retrospective, single-center study without a comparison group, focusing exclusively on orthopedic injuries. Conclusions or implications of key findings: The prevalence of electric scooters, which offer an affordable and eco-friendly mode of transport, is steadily increasing. It is important to focus on injury risk mitigation through effective public health policies, thereby lowering costs to society.

2.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil ; 6(2): 100865, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38328531

RESUMEN

Purpose: To assess and quantify the improvement in visualization of humeral insertion of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) using a 70° scope compared with a 30° scope during elbow arthroscopy. Methods: Twenty patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy for different pathologic conditions were enrolled in this single-center study. Visualization of the medial gutter of the elbow was evaluated by using both the 70° and the 30°scope. During the procedure, a needle was inserted at 45° with respect to the axis of the forearm, directed toward the intra-articular humeral emergence of the MCL. Four areas were established: the body (Z1), the lanceolate part (Z2), the tip of the needle (Z3), and the medial portion of the trochlea (Z4). The visible areas during arthroscopy using 2 different scopes were collected. Results: The 70° scope allowed the detection of the first 3 areas in all patients (Z1, Z2, and Z3) and the visualization of the last area (Z4) in 19 patients (95%). On the other hand, the 30° scope allowed the detection of Z1 in 85% of patients, Z2 in 60% of patients, and Z3 in only 5% of patients. The medial portion of the trochlea was never visualized with the 30° scope. These findings were statistically significant. Conclusions: The 70° scope improves visualization of the medial elbow compartment during elbow arthroscopy compared to the 30° scope, enhancing the extent of joint visualization and potentially permitting the detection of otherwise missed injuries in the difficult-to-reach areas of the joint. Level of Evidence: Level II, diagnostic, prospective, cohort study.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA