Epidemiology of the Upper Extremity Trauma in a Traumatic Center in Iran
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<p><strong>INTRODUCTION: </strong>Orthopedic injuries are the most common types of traumatic injuries and present<strong> </strong>as fractures of the limbs, pelvis, and vertebrae or lesions in soft tissues, muscles, ligaments, and tendons. The upper limb fractures occur in distal radius and ulna, metacarpals, fingers, scapula, and carpal bones, Proximal, diaphysis, distal humerus, clavicle, proximal ulna and radio and distal humero and humero, radio, ulna, and metacarpo. The objective of this project was to accurately describe the occurrence of injuries of the upper extremity and the mechanisms of such injuries in a representative sample of Iranian population.</p><p><strong>METHOD: </strong>This prospective case series was performed on the patients admitted to Shafa Yahyaian Hospital through the emergency ward within 6 months. Patients’ demographic features, the information about the mechanism of injury in soft tissues, bones and joints which obtained using clinical examination and imaging techniques, also the findings during the surgery were recorded in the information form. All analyses were performed using SPSS software, version 21. The independent t test or Mann-Whitney test and the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the data. The results were significant at P&lt;0.05.</p><p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>This study was performed on 1287 patients with upper limb fracture. The male and<strong> </strong>female patients respectively comprised of 998 (77.5%) and 289 (22.5%) subjects. About 113 patients suffered injuries at shoulder joint or its surrounding bones. The most common traumatic mechanisms in this group included falls from the standing position (49.2%), direct hit (19.5%), and then falling down (12.58%). Humerus fractures were observed in 68 patients. There was a significant correlation between humerus fractures and the mechanisms (P=0.000). The patients with traumas around the elbow comprised of 182 individuals. Sex distribution of fractures around the elbow shows a significant correlation between sex and elbow fractures. Forearm fractures were observed in 233 patients, and there was a significant correlation between age groups and forearm fractures. Fractures around the wrist were observed in 333 patients<strong>.</strong> There was a significant correlation between patients with fractures around the wrist (36.88±23.81 years) and patients without fractures (30.84±18.99 years) around the wrist in terms of the mean age. Hand fractures were observed in 358 patients<strong>.</strong> There was a significant correlation between hand fractures and sex<strong>.</strong></p><p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>The result of the current study which shows the epidemiology of these injuries and how such injuries occur in this area can well help the healthcare planners to design preventive and therapeutic measures.</p>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».