MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/pec.0b013e318294dd64

Медицинская библиотека · Pediatric emergency care · 2013

Pediatric electrical burn injuries: experience of a large tertiary care hospital and a review of electrical injury.

Glatstein Miguel M, Ayalon Itay, Miller Ehud, Scolnik Dennis

СтатьяОбзорПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

A retrospective review of all patients admitted between February 2004 and December 2009, with a diagnosis of burns associated with electrocution, was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Data regarding type of electrocution and associated burns were collected. Of the 36 patients identified, 31 (86%) were shocked by electrical current, and 5 (14%) by lightning. Most burns associated with current were first degree (58%). The upper limbs, most frequently the wrist and arm (n = 23), were injured in 26 patients, and the lower limb in 2 patients, whereas 3 patients suffered multiple sites of injury. Twenty-eight patients were treated conservatively with dressings and minor surgical interventions such as debridement and primary repair. The remainder required excision and/or grafting. Fasciotomy and/or escharotomy were performed in 2 patients, and no one required amputation. Burns associated with electrical injuries remain a worldwide problem, responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality. They can usually be prevented through simple safety measures. An effective prevention program would help address this problem.

Для цитирования: Glatstein Miguel M, Ayalon Itay, Miller Ehud, Scolnik Dennis. Pediatric electrical burn injuries: experience of a large tertiary care hospital and a review of electrical injury.. Pediatric emergency care. 2013. DOI: 10.1097/pec.0b013e318294dd64.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.