RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Recreational swimming/diving is among the most common physical activities in US children and a significant cause of morbidity across the United States. This study updates the national epidemiology of diving-related injuries. METHODS: The Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database was queried for patients aged 0 to 19 from 2008 to 2020 who presented to any of the 100 National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-participating emergency departments for a diving-related injury. Dive characteristics such as dive height, dive skill, dive direction, and dive sequence were determined from case narratives. RESULTS: A total of 1202 cases were identified for analysis corresponding to a total national estimate of 37,387 diving related injuries during the period from 2008 to 2020 and a national incidence of 3.6 injuries per 100,000 population. Males accounted for 64% of injuries. The average yearly incidences of injury in the 10 to 14 and 15 to 19 age groups were identical at 5.8 per 100,000. Contact with the diving board or platform was the most common cause of injury (34%). Diving backwards or attempting a flip or handstand dive were associated with increased odds of sustaining an injury resulting from contact with the diving board or platform (odds ratio, 16.0 and 6.9, respectively). In 2020, the incidence of diving-related injury fell to 1.6 per 100,000 population. CONCLUSIONS: Diving injuries are common in children and adolescents, especially in boys aged 10 to 19. There was a significant reduction in diving-related injury corresponding with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assuntos
Mergulho , Piscinas , Masculino , Adolescente , Humanos , Criança , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Mergulho/efeitos adversos , Pandemias , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , IncidênciaAssuntos
Emoções , Mídias Sociais , Criança , Humanos , Masculino , Redução Aberta , Decúbito VentralRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Operative treatment of medial epicondyle fractures can be performed in either a supine or prone position. In the supine position, fracture visualization is sometimes difficult due to the posterior position of the medial epicondyle. However, the prone position requires extensive patient repositioning but may improve visualization. The purpose of this study was to compare the results and complications between the supine and prone position when treating medial epicondyle fractures. METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, patients below 18 who underwent open reduction and internal fixation of an acute medial epicondyle fracture from January 2011 to August 2019 were identified. Patients with <2 months follow-up and concomitant fractures were excluded. Surgical variables, outcomes, and complications were recorded and compared between the supine and prone positions. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons treated the 204 patients evaluated in this study. The mean age was 11.7 years. In all, 122 (60%) patients were treated in the supine position, and 82 (40%) in the prone position. The mean time in the room was 113 minutes in the supine group, and 141 minutes in the prone group (P<0.001). Tourniquet time was similar between groups (P=0.4). Displacement of the fracture on the first postoperative x-rays was 2.06 mm for the supine position and 1.1 mm for the prone position (P<0.001). We also found good interobserver and intraobserver reliability for the measurements. Five patients (2.5%) required reoperation due to stiffness, 2 patients due to nonunion, 1 patient due to tardy ulnar nerve palsy, and 53 (26%) had surgical hardware removal. The surgical position was not associated with complications or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: While the prone position requires additional time in the operating room, presumably for positioning, the length of the surgical procedure itself does not differ between the 2 positions. Although the trend of the surgeons at our center is towards the prone position, with surgeons that try it usually doing all their subsequent cases that way, both positions provide excellent clinical outcomes with minimal complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III-retrospective cohort study.