- Comparison of Compliance, Time Required for Diagnosis and Pain of Patients with Finger Tendon Injury Between Gross and Ultrasonographic Confirmation
-
Seo Woo Lee, Hyun Jae Park, Jung Won Lee, Sae Hoon Park, Jae Woo Kim
-
J Korean Soc Traumatol. 2010;23(2):83-88.
-
-
-
 Abstract
 PDF
- PURPOSE
It is not always easy to determine the existence of tendon injuries when it comes to patients with finger lacerations. Thus, we tried to find the difference in effectiveness and in compliance of patients when we employed two different types of diagnosis, conventional gross confirmation and ultrasonographic confirmation.
METHODS
From December 2009 to March 2010, we enrolled 14 patients with finger tendon injury at Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital. The median age of the patients was 35.9+/-14.4, and the ratio of females to males was 1:2.5 We evaluated the compliance of each patient by measuring four different categories (level of cooperativeness in showing their wound and in following the instructions, level of movement of their fingers during the diagnosis and total number of attempts to diagnose) by using a score from 1 to 3 for each category, for a total possible score of 12 for each patient. We also measured the painfulness of each patient by using a score of 1 to 10 and the time required for each diagnosis.
RESULTS
The levels of patients' compliance was 8.9+/-2.1 when diagnosed with gross confirmation and 9.8+/-2.1 when diagnosed with ultrasonographic confirmation (p value=0.042). The pain score of the patients was 3.7+/-1.7 with gross confirmation and 2.9+/-1.2 with ultrasonographic confirmation (p value=0.020). The median duration of time in each test was 6.7+/-4.8 minutes with gross confirmation and 10.5+/-4.2 minutes with ultrasonography (p value=0.006).
CONCLUSION
Comparing gross confirmation and ultrasonographic confirmation, gross confirmation is a better method than ultrasonography because of time efficiency. However, ultrasonographic confirmation has advantages over gross confirmation in pain scale and better compliance of patients. Emergency physicians generally employ gross confirmation rather than ultrasonography in determining the existence of tendon injury in patients. In patients with finger lacerations without bone injury, ultrasonography can be considered as a secondary diagnostic tool, especially when patients have much pain.
-
Summary
- Current Status of Intraosseous Infusion Technique Use at Emergency Departments in Korea
-
Sang Cheon Choi, Hyun Soo Park, Jae Woo Kim
-
J Korean Soc Traumatol. 2007;20(1):6-11.
-
-
-
Abstract
PDF
- PURPOSE
Gaining vascular access is difficult and time-consuming in critically ill children, so nowdays, in many countries, intraosseous vascular access is frequently used for rapid vascular access in critically ill children. Its pharmacokinetics is close to that of the peripheral intravenous route, but its infusion flow rate is faster. The purpose of this study was to determine how widely the intraosseous infusion technique was being used in Korean emergency departments.
METHODS
We telephoned forty-two (42) randomly selected university-affiliated hospitals. We asked physicians if they use the intraosseous infusion technique. Responders were emergency and pediatric residents and emergency faculty. If they responded that they were not using the intraosseous infusion technique, we asked the reason. Also, we asked about their experiences with the intraosseous infusion technique.
RESULTS
Forty-two (42) hospitals were enrolled in this study. No hospital used the intraosseous infusion technique on a regular basis. However, 8 hospitals used the intraosseous infusion technique occasionally. None of the responders had experience with the intraosseous infusion technique.
CONCLUSION
The intraosseous infusion technique is currently underrepresented at emergency departments in Korea.
-
Summary
|
KST
