Comparative analysis between identified injuries of victims of fall from height and other mechanisms of closed trauma

6Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the lesions diagnosed in victims of falls, comparing them with those diagnosed in other mechanisms of blunt trauma. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of trauma protocol charts (prospectively collected) from 2008 to 2010, including victims of trauma over 13 years of age admitted to the emergency room. The severity of injuries was stratified by the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Variables were compared between the group of victims of falls from height (Group 1) and the other victims of blunt trauma (Group 2). We used the Student t, chi-square and Fisher tests for comparison between groups, considering the value of p <0.05 as significant. Results: The series comprised 4,532 cases of blunt trauma, of which 555 (12.2%) were victims of falls from height. Severe lesions (AISe”3) were observed in the extremities (17.5%), in the cephalic segment (8.4%), chest (5.5%) and the abdomen (2.9%). Victims of Group 1 had significantly higher mean age, AIS in extremities/pelvis, AIS in the thoracic segment and ISS (p <0.05). The group 1 had significantly (p <0.05) higher incidence of tracheal intubation on admission, pneumothorax, hemothorax, rib fractures, chest drainage, spinal trauma, pelvic fractures, complex pelvic fractures and fractures to the upper limbs. Conclusion: Victims of fall from height had greater anatomic injury severity, greater frequency and severity of lesions in the thoracic segment and extremities.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Parreira, J. G., Matar, M. R., Tôrres, L. B. A., Perlingeiro, J. A. G., Solda, S. C., & Assef, J. C. (2014). Comparative analysis between identified injuries of victims of fall from height and other mechanisms of closed trauma. Revista Do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes, 41(4), 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912014004009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free