Acute Traumatic Hand Injury Research Articles

Epidemiology of occupational acute traumatic hand injuries: a literature review

The purpose of this review was to summarize the literature on occupational, acute, traumatic hand injury and suggest directions for future research. In 1996, the leading occupational injury treated in United States' hospital emergency departments was an acute hand injury (e.g. laceration, crush or fracture). These injuries affected 30% of an estimated 3.3 million injured workers (990,000). Cuts and lacerations of the fingers ranked third after back and leg strains in the number of lost workday cases in the USA in 1994. The incidence rate of hand injuries studied in seven manufacturing environments around the world ranged from 4 to 11 per 100 workers per year. Workers aged 24 years or less had the highest risk of hand injury. Men had higher rates of severe hand injury than women. Despite the high frequency and significant amount of lost work time associated with these injuries, they are poorly understood from an etiological perspective. There is only one case-control study of occupational hand injury in the literature. That study suggested an important role for both fixed (age) and transient risk factors (doing an unusual task) at the time of the injury. More analytic epidemiological research is needed to identify potentially modifiable risk or protective factors (e.g. glove use) for acute hand injuries. In this regard, the case-crossover design, a relatively new epidemiological approach using cases as their own controls, could prove an efficient method for determining transient, modifiable risk factors for acute, occupational hand injury.

A qualitative study of stress factors in the early stage of acute traumatic hand injury.

The aim of the study reported in this paper was to identify stress factors in the early stage of acute traumatic hand injury. Stress factors were defined as circumstances which the hand-injured patients experienced as problems in the actual situation. A total of 20 patients, treated as inpatients at the Department of Hand Surgery in Orebro Medical Centre Hospital, Sweden, were interviewed 8-20 days after the day of the accident. The analyses of the interviews followed the first step in the analytical process described in a modified model of grounded theory. The trauma experience was one of the stress factors in the early stage. Single acute traumatic stress symptoms, mostly involuntary recollection and re-experience of the trauma, were found in a fourth of the hand-injured patients. All patients reported impaired functioning caused by their hand, irrespective of injury. Practical problems with daily activities and being dependent on help from others for solving practical problems were stress factors caused by functional impairment. Before the accident most of the hand-injured had been very active, also working a lot with their hands in their leisure-time. Involuntary inactivity was a big problem for some of them. Other stress factors in the early stage were uncertainty about function in the future and pain. The appearance of the hand was a minor problem before the first follow-up visit. Probably because the hand was hidden in a bandage. However, some hand-injured felt discomfort in seeing the hand when the dressing was changed at the first follow-up visit.

This month in JAN

This month in JAN

Application of the Case-Crossover Design to the Study of Occupational Acute Traumatic Hand Injury

We conducted a case-crossover study of transient risk factors for occupational acute traumatic hand injury in 232 subjects recruited from occupational health clinics in New England. The a priori hazard period was 10 minutes before the injury. The control period for each subject was the total work-time exposed in the previous month. The relative risk for using malfunctioning or different from usual equipment or tools in the hazard period was 21.2 (95% confidence interval = 15.7–28.6). Relative risks were also significantly elevated for performing a task using an unusual work method, doing an unusual task, being distracted, or being rushed. Wearing gloves was protective (relative risk = 0.6, 95% confidence interval = 0.3–0.9). We conclude that the case-crossover design is an appropriate method for studying transient risk factors for sudden-onset occupational injury.