ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Superficial corneal foreign bodies (SCFB) are common injuries seen in the ED. The aim of this study was to describe the eye injuries caused by FBs and to determine clinical strategies for the prevention and management of ocular trauma. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of the previous two years. Demographic data, timing of the injury, injury type (open- or closed-globe injuries), source of the FB, hospital admission and ophthalmology consultation, treatments, and the long-term complications were recorded for each patient. RESULTS: There were 476 patients, and 83% were male, with an average age of 34.16±14.02 years. 9.7% of the eyes had an open-globe injury, while the rest were closed-globe injuries with or without SCFB. The most common FBs were metal fragments (37.6%) and dust (31.1%). The majority of the patients (72.1%) sustained work-related injuries. 42.4% of the patients were consulted to ophthalmology, and the remaining were treated by the emergency physicians. Only 10% of the patients required hospitalization, and complications were seen in 2.3% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Ocular FB involved mainly young healthy males who had sustained work-related injuries. In view of the large number of eye injuries seen in Eds, ED colleagues should train themselves in order to appropriately recognize, treat and refer the SCFB injuries seen in the ED.
Subject(s)
Eye Foreign Bodies/epidemiology , Occupational Injuries/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Emergency Service, Hospital , Emergency Treatment , Eye Foreign Bodies/etiology , Eye Foreign Bodies/therapy , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Occupational Injuries/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Turkey/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Seizure-related visits are common in the emergency department (ED) but the clinical situations for ordering emergency electroencephalography (EEG) are unclear. The aim of this study is to identify which clinical conditions meet with the pathological EEG and whether patient management is changed by abnormal results. METHODS: A retrospective chart review study of all patients visiting the ED with a seizure or symptoms mimicking a seizure was performed. Patients who recorded an EEG within 16 h after the initial event were enrolled. Demographic data and EEG results of patients with provoked and unprovoked seizures were recorded and related factors were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 449 patients (219 men) of mean ± SD age of 45.48 ± 21.83 years were evaluated. The seizure was thought to be provoked in 98 patients (21.8%) and unprovoked in 352 (78.2%) patients (31.2% remote symptomatic and 47.4% idiopathic). The EEG results of 281 patients (62.6%) revealed an abnormality, and the abnormal EEG ratio was high in patients with presumed seizure (p<0.001). One hundred and thirty-eight patients (30.7%) were hospitalised and the remainder (n=311, 69.3%) were discharged from the ED. An abnormal EEG was found in 98 (71%) of the hospitalised patients and in 183 (59.5%) of those discharged (p=0.019). CONCLUSION: EEG provides useful diagnostic information and should be considered in all patients presenting to the ED with a seizure. Since the timing of the study affects the diagnostic efficacy of the test, EEG recordings might be done within 24 h either in the ED or epilepsy clinic.
