Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Eur Spine J ; 27(12): 2999-3006, 2018 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30220041

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The practice of prehospital immobilization is coming under increasing scrutiny. Unravelling the historical sequence of prehospital immobilization might shed more light on this matter and help resolve the situation. Main purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development and reasoning behind the implementation of prehospital spine immobilization. METHODS: An extensive search throughout historical literature and recent evidence based studies was conducted. RESULTS: The history of treating spinal injuries dates back to prehistoric times. Descriptions of prehospital spinal immobilization are more recent and span two distinct periods. First documentation of its use comes from the early 19th century, when prehospital trauma care was introduced on the battlefields of the Napoleonic wars. The advent of radiology gradually helped to clarify the underlying pathology. In recent decades, adoption of advanced trauma life support has elevated in-hospital trauma-care to an high standard. Practice of in-hospital spine immobilization in case of suspected injury has also been implemented as standard-care in prehospital setting. Evidence for and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided in recent evidence-based studies. In addition, recent studies have shown negative side-effects of immobilisation in penetrating injuries. CONCLUSION: Although widely implementation of spinal immobilization to prevent spinal cord injury in both penetrating and blunt injury, it cannot be explained historically. Furthermore, there is no high-level scientific evidence to support or reject immobilisation in blunt injury. Since evidence in favour and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided, the present situation appears to have reached something of a deadlock. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/métodos , Inmovilización , Traumatismos Vertebrales/terapia , Medicina de Emergencia Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Humanos , Inmovilización/efectos adversos , Traumatismos de la Médula Espinal/prevención & control , Heridas no Penetrantes/terapia , Heridas Penetrantes/terapia
2.
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr ; 12(2): 91-97, 2017 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28439818

RESUMEN

There are no clear guidelines when an additional CT scan should be obtained for the treatment of displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures (DRF). This study aimed to investigate whether surgeons can predict the usefulness of CT scans to facilitate choice of treatment plan and/or pre-operative planning for DRF. Four surgeons evaluated 51 patients with displaced DRF. The choice of treatment (operative or nonoperative) was based on conventional radiographs. Subsequently, the surgeons were asked whether they would have requested an additional CT scan to determine this treatment choice, and also whether they required a CT scan for pre-operative planning. After 4 weeks, the additional CT scan was provided and the cases were assessed again. Based on these data, we calculated the number needed to scan (NNS) and number needed to harm (NNH) for two decision models. Model 1: Only provide a CT scan if the surgeon requested one based on their judgment of the X-rays. Model 2: CT scans for all displaced intra-articular DRF. For choice of treatment, the NNS was lower for model 1 than for model 2 (2.6 vs. 4.3) and the NNH is higher for model 1 (3.1 vs. 1.3). For pre-operative planning, the NNS (1.3 vs. 1.4) and NNH (3.7 vs. 3.4) were comparable for both models. Surgeons are able to predict the usefulness of an additional CT scan for intra-articular displaced DRF for OR indication. However, for pre-operative planning the usefulness of a CT scan is much harder to predict.

3.
Ann Vasc Surg ; 35: 207.e1-3, 2016 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27238985

RESUMEN

Gluteal artery pseudoaneurysms are a rare cause of buttock pain, with few cases reported in the recent literature. Although small pseudoaneurysms are usually asymptomatic, larger can be painful and require treatment. Most of these cases are pseudoaneurysms resulting from local trauma. We report in this case a patient with a gluteal artery pseudoaneurysm. The pseudoaneurysm was successfully thrombosed using ultrasound-guided thrombin injection. This article reviews the literature, discusses the imaging diagnostics and the treatment of gluteal artery aneurysms.


Asunto(s)
Aneurisma Falso/fisiopatología , Nalgas/irrigación sanguínea , Flujo Pulsátil , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Aneurisma Falso/diagnóstico por imagen , Aneurisma Falso/tratamiento farmacológico , Angiografía por Tomografía Computarizada , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Intraarteriales , Flujo Sanguíneo Regional , Trombina/administración & dosificación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ultrasonografía Intervencional
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA