MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2496134822 · doi:10.5580/1487

A Case of Snooker Cue Injury

2004· article· en· W2496134822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Internet Journal of Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penetrating trauma to male external genitalia is rare and furthermore has not been reported in children. We report a case of this rather unusual injury. No mention has been found of this type of injury in the literature CASE REPORT An 11-year old boy presented to Accident Department with a snooker injury to his scrotum sustained by falling off a high chair onto the cue tip. There was no history of any fight or suspicious intent. On arrival, he was alert and fully conscious. No other injury was identified. He was haemodynamically stable and was covered for tetanus. Genital examination revealed a penetrating injury to the left hemi-scrotum through the base with exit point over the supra-pubic region with the snooker cue in situ (Figure I & II). No bleeding from the urethral meatus was identified. Abdominal examination revealed no signs of peritonism. Chest examination was normal. Abdomen and Chest X ray were normal. Figure 1 Figure I: showing the entry and exit point Figure 2 Figure II: showing the snooker cue transversing through the hemiscrotum Intravenous antibiotics were administered. Every attempt was made to keep the boy calm and the cue immobile. The patient was taken to theatre and the wound was explored. Cord and testis were intact and no communication with the abdominal cavity was found. The wound was closed over a corrugated drain. Urethral catherization was performed to exclude any injury. Post-operatvely, intravenous antibiotics were given for 24 hrs and then oral to complete the course. The corrugated drain removed next day. Further followup: No further problems were reported and the wound healed well. DISCUSSION Penetrating injury to the scrotum is uncommon and the A Case of Snooker Cue Injury 2 of 3 nature of this injury is unique. There has been no mention of this type of injury in children in a literature review. Of the 40 patients reported, 36 were gunshot wounds and 4 stab wounds [1] and one isolated case of landing on a broomstick [2]. Usually not serious in itself it may be associated with other more serious conditions. [2] [3]. No attempt should be made to remove the foreign object in the Emergency department. Furthermore, one should be vigilant about associated injuries and the patient should be observed in hospital for a period of time. Early surgical exploration with conservative debridement is recommended [1]. In all cases, the entire tract should be explored to its terminus to search for other injuries [2]. Penetrating injuries have a lower mortality rate, possibly due to a higher index of suspicion and fewer delays in operating [3]. CORRESPONDENCE TO A. K. Singh 2 Forest Rise Desford Leicester United Kingdom LE9 9DX Tel: 01455822490 Fax: 0115 9709921 E-mail: anjanisingh@lineone.net References 1. Cline-K J, Mata-J A, Venable -D D, Eastham-J A. Penetrating trauma to male external genitalia. Journal of Trauma 1998 Mar, 44(3): 492-4 2. Schwarz-R.J, Blair-G.K. Trans-scrotal intra-abdominal injuries. Canadian Journal of surgery 1995 Aug; 38(4): 374-6. 3. Datta-S N, Wheeler-M H. Isolated penetrating injury to the duodenum via a scrotal entry wound. British journal of Surgery 1994 Jun, 81(6): 885. A Case of Snooker Cue Injury 3 of 3 Author Information Anjani Kumar Singh, MBBS MRCS Senior House Officer General Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Diana Princess of Wales hospital Harish Kumar, MS FRCS Specialist Registrar General Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Diana Princess of Wales hospital

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Internet Journal of SurgerySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207