SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1

Acil serviste gözden kaçan ekstremite kırıkları

Overlooked extremity fractures in the emergency department

Erhan ER
Pınar H. KARA
ORHAN OYAR
Erden E. ÜNLÜER
Pages
25–28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION: Knowledge about the types of fractures that are most commonly missed facilitates a specifically directed educational benefit.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to analyse the accuracy of emergency physicians’ (EP) interpretation of extremity traumas to determine the most difficult area for interpretation compared with official radiology reports for direct X-ray.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: The radiologist reports and the EP reports of the direct X-rays from isolated extremity trauma patients were retrospectively compared from 01.05.2011 to 31.05.2011.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION: Knowledge about the types of fractures that are most commonly missed facilitates a specifically directed educational benefit.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to analyse the accuracy of emergency physicians’ (EP) interpretation of extremity traumas to determine the most difficult area for interpretation compared with official radiology reports for direct X-ray. METHODS: The radiologist reports and the EP reports of the direct X-rays from isolated extremity trauma patients were retrospectively compared from 01.05.2011 to 31.05.2011. A total of 181 fractures in 608 cases were confirmed. RESULTS: The locations of the misinterpreted fractures were ankle and foot (51.4%), wrist and hand (32.4%), elbow and forearm (5.4%), shoulder and upper arm (5.4%), hip and thigh (2.7%), and knee and leg (2.7%). The diagnostic accuracy of the EPs and radiologists were not significantly different (kappa = 0.856, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about the types of fractures that are most commonly missed facilitates a specifically directed educational benefit.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı izole ekstremite travmalarında, acil servis doktorlarının yorumlarının resmi radyoloji raporlarıyla karşılaştırılmasıyla en zor yorumlama alanını belirlemek ve acil doktorlarının yorumlarının doğruluğunu analiz etmektir. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Radyolog raporları ve acil servis doktorlarının yorumları izole ekstremite travmalı hastalarda retrospektif olarak 01.05.2011’den 31.05.2011 tarihine kadar karşılaştırıldı. Toplam 608 vakada 181 kırık saptandı. BULGULAR: Yanlış yorumlanan kırıkların yerleri sırasıyla ayak bileği ve ayak (%51.4), bilek ve el (%32.4), dirsek ve önkol (%5.4), omuz ve üst kol (%5.4), kalça ve uyluk (%2.7), diz ve bacak (%2.7) olarak belirlenmiştir. Acil servis doktorlarının ve radyologların tanısal doğrulukları arasında anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı (kapa=0.856, p=0.001). SONUÇ: En sık atlanan kırık tiplerinin bilinmesi, bu konuda eğitimin yoğunlaştırılmasıyla acil servislerde kaçırılan vakaların minimuma indirilmesini sağlayabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ER, E., KARA, P. H., OYAR, O., ÜNLÜER, E. E. (2013). Acil serviste gözden kaçan ekstremite kırıkları. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1, 25–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/324134

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Hallas P, Ellingsen T. Errors in fracture diagnoses in the emergency department-characteristics of patients and diurnal variation. BMC Emerg Med 2006;6:4
  2. Guly HR. Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J 2001;18:263-9
  3. Juhl M, Moller-Madsen B, Jensen J. Missed injuries in an orthopaedic department. Injury 1990;21:110-2
  4. Espinosa AJ, Nolan WT. Reducing errors made by emergen- cy physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study. BMJ 2000;320:737-40
  5. Wei CJ, Tsai WC, Tiu CM, Wu HT, Chiou HJ, Chang CY. Systematic analysis of missed extremity fractures in emer- gency radiology. Acta Radiol 2006;47:710-7
  6. Berlin L. Defending the “missed” radiographic diagnosis.AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:317-22
  7. Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GE, Renard R, Gitlin JN, Bluemke DA, et al. Interpretation of Emergency Department radio- graphs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:1233-8
  8. Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P. Variation between experienced observers in the interpreta- tion of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol 1999;72(856):323-30
  9. Lufkin KC, Smith SW, Matticks CA, Brunette DD. Radiolo- gists’ review of radiographs interpreted confidently by emer- gency physicians infrequently leads to changes in patient management. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:202-7
  10. Scott WW Jr, Bluemke DA, Mysko WK, Weller GE, Kelen GD, Reichle RL, et al. Interpretation of emergency depart- ment radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings. Radiology 1995;195:223-9
  11. Fleisher G, Ludwig S, McSorley M. Interpretation of pediat- ric x-ray films by emergency department pediatricians. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:153-8
  12. Rhea JT, Potsaid MS, DeLuca SA. Errors of interpretation as elicited by a quality audit of an emergency radiology facility. Radiology 1979;132:277-80
  13. Guly HR. Missed tendon injuries. Arch Emerg Med 1991;8:87-91
  14. Freed HA, Shields NN. Most frequently overlooked radio- graphically apparent fractures in a teaching hospital emer- gency department. Ann Emerg Med 1984;13:900-4
  15. James MR, Bracegirdle A, Yates DW. X-ray reporting in ac- cident and emergency departments-an area for improvements in efficiency. Arch Emerg Med 1991;8:266-70
  16. Touquet R, Driscoll P, Nicholson D. Teaching in accident and emergency medicine: