Title |
Patterns and management of degloving injuries: a single national level 1 trauma center experience
|
---|---|
Published in |
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, July 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13017-016-0093-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Suhail Hakim, Khalid Ahmed, Ayman El-Menyar, Gaby Jabbour, Ruben Peralta, Syed Nabir, Ahammed Mekkodathil, Husham Abdelrahman, Ammar Al-Hassani, Hassan Al-Thani |
Abstract |
Degloving soft tissue injuries (DSTIs) are serious surgical conditions. We aimed to evaluate the pattern, management and outcome of DSTIs in a single institute. A retrospective analysis was performed for patients admitted with DSTIs from 2011to 2013. Presentation, management and outcomes were analyzed according to the type of DSTI. Of 178 DSTI patients, 91 % were males with a mean age of 30.5 ± 12.8. Three-quarter of cases was due to traffic-related injuries. Eighty percent of open DSTI cases were identified. Primary debridement and closure (62.9 %) was the frequent intervention used. Intermediate closed drainage under ultrasound guidance was performed in 7 patients; however, recurrence occurred in 4 patients who underwent closed serial drainage for recollection and ended with a proper debridement with or without vacuum assisted closure (VAC). Closed DSTIs were mainly seen in the lower extremity and back region and initially treated with conservative management as compared to open DSTIs. Infection and skin necrosis were reported in 9 cases only. Open DSTIs were more likely involving head and neck region and being treated by primary debridement/suturing and serial debridement/washout with or without VAC. All-cause DSTI mortality was 9 % that was higher in the closed DSTIs (19.4 vs 6.3 %; p = 0.01). The incidence of DSTIs is 4 % among trauma admissions over 3 years, with a greater predilection to males and young population. DSTIs are mostly underestimated particularly in the closed type that are usually missed at the initial presentation and associated with poor outcomes. Treatment guidelines are not well established and therefore further studies are warranted. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 9 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
Other | 8 | 16% |
Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 49% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
Psychology | 2 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 16 | 33% |