↓ Skip to main content

To Cast, to Saw, and Not to Injure: Can Safety Strips Decrease Cast Saw Injuries?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
To Cast, to Saw, and Not to Injure: Can Safety Strips Decrease Cast Saw Injuries?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4723-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie C. Stork, Rachel L. Lenhart, Blaise A. Nemeth, Kenneth J. Noonan, Matthew A. Halanski

Abstract

Placement and removal of fiberglass casts are among the more-common interventions performed in pediatric orthopaedic surgery offices. However, cast removal is associated with abrasive injuries and burns from the oscillating cast saw, and these injuries can occur even when the cast is removed by experienced personnel. It is unknown whether an added barrier, such as a safety strip, can mitigate injuries from blade-to-skin contact during cast removal with the oscillating saw. We asked: (1) Can a safety strip provide a physical barrier during cast removal, decreasing blade-to-skin contact? (2) Does the safety strip lessen heat transfer? (3) Will the use of the safety strip prevent cast pressure from being released when the cast is split? Standard long-arm fiberglass casts were removed by experienced and inexperienced healthcare personnel (n = 35) from life-sized pediatric models. A commercially available woven cast saw safety strip, commonly incorporated in waterproof cast constructs, was chosen as the protective strip. Each participant removed a cast with and without the safety strip present. All participants were blinded to the presence or absence of the safety strip at the time of cast removal. The number of touches was compared between cast removal with and without protective strips. A separate model was designed to assess prevention of heat transfer. Temperatures were recorded, using thermocouples, for three designated temperatures. Five to six trials were conducted at each designated temperature for each of two conditions, with and without the safety strip. Finally, to assess if the safety strip would prevent cast pressure from being released, a third model was used. Thirty standard short-arm casts were applied and removed from the arm models by one of the authors. Pressure data were collected from between the padding layers, in casts with and without the safety strip present, after application, univalving and bivalving each cast. Use of the safety strip reduced the number of simulated skin touches compared with casts removed without the safety strip, among experienced users (mean, 9.0 [range, 1-28] versus 0.1 [range, 0-1], mean ratio, 0.0012; 95% CI, 0.002-0.063; p < 0.001) and inexperienced users (mean, 8.5 [range, 0-31] versus 0.6 [range, 0-3], mean ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.15; p < 0.001). The safety strips decreased heat transfer, preventing temperatures at the cast-skin interface from reaching 50 °C. Finally, after splitting the cast, with the numbers available, there was no increase in the pressure beneath the casts in those with the safety strip present (mean without, 0.23 [SD, 0.070] versus safety strip in the padding 0.20 [SD, 0.091] and safety strip on top padding, 0.21 [SD, 0.090]; p = 0.446 and p = 0.65 respectively). Our study showed the effectiveness of a safety strip in reducing simulated touches with the oscillating cast saw during cast splitting. Additional studies are warranted to investigate the clinical use and utility of the safety strip in practice. The findings of this study suggest that using safety strips in clinical practice could decrease blade-to-skin contact and therefore minimize cast saw injuries. However, validation of these findings in the clinical setting is necessary before drawing a definitive conclusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,586,906
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#409
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,879
of 405,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#9
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.