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

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Revista
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Injury ; 48(2): 552-556, 2017 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28034438

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Several so-called casting indices are available for objective evaluation of plaster cast quality. The present study sought to investigate four of these indices (gap index, padding index, Canterbury index, and three-point index) as compared to a reference standard (cast index) for evaluation of plaster cast quality after closed reduction of pediatric displaced distal forearm fractures. METHODS: Forty-three radiographs from patients with displaced distal forearm fractures requiring manipulation were reviewed. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, false-positive probability, false-negative probability, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated for each of the tested indices. RESULTS: Comparison among indices revealed diagnostic agreement in only 4.7% of cases. The strongest correlation with the cast index was found for the gap index, with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.94. The gap index also displayed the best agreement with the cast index, with both indices yielding the same result in 79.1% of assessments. CONCLUSION: When seeking to assess plaster cast quality, the cast index and gap index should be calculated; if both indices agree, a decision on quality can be made. If the cast and gap indices disagree, the padding index can be calculated as a tiebreaker, and the decision based on the most frequent of the three results. Calculation of the three-point index and Canterbury index appears unnecessary.


Asunto(s)
Moldes Quirúrgicos/normas , Competencia Clínica/normas , Traumatismos del Antebrazo/diagnóstico por imagen , Radiografía , Fracturas del Radio/diagnóstico por imagen , Fracturas del Cúbito/diagnóstico por imagen , Adolescente , Brasil , Moldes Quirúrgicos/efectos adversos , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Traumatismos del Antebrazo/fisiopatología , Traumatismos del Antebrazo/terapia , Curación de Fractura , Humanos , Masculino , Evaluación del Resultado de la Atención al Paciente , Fracturas del Radio/terapia , Recurrencia , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fracturas del Cúbito/terapia
2.
Injury ; 47(12): 2749-2754, 2016 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28340942

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To analyze knowledge of the anatomic location of the piriform fossa using a questionnaire with anatomic figures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants taking AO Trauma Brasil courses were requested to complete a questionnaire containing a photograph of the superior surface and a photograph of the lateral surface of the femur and answer a question asking which of four numbered points corresponded to the piriform fossa. RESULTS: Just 4.5% of respondents correctly chose point 2 (the piriform fossa) in both images, while 75.4% of respondents chose point 4 (the trochanteric fossa) as the correct anatomic structure. The subset of 4th-year residents' answers was significantly different from those of the other subsets, with 7.5% of correct answers. CONCLUSIONS: The low rate of correct answers indicates a tendency for the respondents to be influenced by illustrations in text books or examples in scientific publications that indicate the site of the piriform fossa incorrectly. Interest in the specialty of traumatology is possibly the reason why the subset of 4th-year residents had a better- than-average rate of correct answers.


Asunto(s)
Anatomía/educación , Competencia Clínica/normas , Fracturas del Fémur/cirugía , Fémur/anatomía & histología , Fijación Intramedular de Fracturas , Ortopedia/educación , Brasil , Fijación Intramedular de Fracturas/métodos , Humanos , Internado y Residencia , Estándares de Referencia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA