Isolated LOC in head trauma associated with significant injury on brain CT scan.

BACKGROUND: A report of loss of consciousness (LOC) is frequently considered reason enough to obtain a computed tomography (CT) scan in the evaluation of head trauma. We conducted this study to reduce exposure to radiation from CT, while still not overlooking clinically significant injuries. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to determine the correlation between LOC status and brain CT scan results in patients with blunt head trauma and to determine whether there is a subset of patients for whom CT scan need not be performed, without missing clinically significant intracranial injuries. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted in the emergency department of an inner-city hospital. The patient population included patients ranging between 13 and 35 years of age, with blunt head trauma, who presented to the emergency department (ED) between January 2010 and December 2013. Patients were divided into two groups: "LOC" group and "no LOC" group. The results of brain CT scans from each group were compared with LOC status. For study purposes, "clinically significant" were those that required interventions or ICU hospitalization of at least 24 h or extended hospitalization. The results were analyzed using chi-square calculations. RESULTS: During the study period, 494 patients were identified as having suffered head trauma. Of these, 185 (37.5%) reported LOC and 309 (62.5%) did not lose consciousness. In the LOC group, 15 (8.1%) had significant CT findings compared to 1.3% (4/309) of those without LOC (p < .001). Of the 4 who had no LOC and had significant brain CT findings, all 4 patients had positive physical findings of head, neck, or facial trauma. In the LOC group, only 1/15 (6.7%) had significant CT findings with a normal GCS of 15 and no physical signs of the head, neck, or facial trauma. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of patients with LOC had CT finding requiring intervention. Head trauma patients with no physical injuries to the head, neck, or face and a normal GCS had no significant brain CT findings. This raises the question of whether a routine brain CT scan should be obtained in patients with LOC, no physical findings, and a normal GCS after blunt head trauma.

Fracture of the penis: an atypical presentation.

BACKGROUND: Fracture of the penis is an uncommon injury presenting to the emergency department (ED). Personal embarrassment and social scenarios associated with this condition may result in underreporting. Patients often delay seeking medical attention, and even when they do, as in our case report, they may withhold the condition for a significant time. ED physicians need to be aware of the social inhibitions and the need for early diagnosis and prompt treatment. A delay in treatment increases the risk of complications such as ischemia, necrosis and penile deformity.Fracture of the penis is caused by rupture of the tunica albuginea of one or both corpora cavernosa by a blunt trauma to the erect penis. Diagnosis is usually clinical as evident by the characteristic history and clinical presentation. Diagnostic modalities aid in the management of the fracture and associated injuries if present. But promptness in the recognition and initiation of treatment can significantly reduce the chances of post-injury complications. FINDINGS: We present a case of penile fracture in a young male who presented to the ED with abdominal pain, but careful history and physical examination revealed penile fracture. A delay in diagnosis could have led to complications. CONCLUSION: Our case report is an attempt to emphasize the need to suspect injury to the penis in a young adult who might present to the emergency department with an entirely different complaint and also to treat any penile trauma as an emergency. This report provides evidence of an uncommon and underreported clinical entity. A review of the pertinent literature is included.

Is there a relationship between wound infections and laceration closure times?

BACKGROUND: Lacerations account for a large number of ED visits. Is there a "golden period" beyond which lacerations should not be repaired primarily? What type of relationship exists between time of repair and wound infection rates? Is it linear or exponential? Currently, the influence of laceration age on the risk of infection in simple lacerations repaired is not clearly defined. We conducted this study to determine the influence of time of primary wound closure on the infection rate. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of patients who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with a laceration requiring closure from April 2009 to November 2010. The wound closure time was defined as the time interval from when the patient reported laceration occurred until the time of the start of the wound repair procedure. Univariate analysis was performed to determine the factors predictive of infection. A non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the median differences of time of laceration repair. Chi-square (Fisher's exact) tests were performed to test for infection differences with regard to gender, race, location of laceration, mechanism of injury, co-morbidities, type of anesthesia and type of suture material used. RESULTS: Over the study period, 297 participants met the inclusion criteria and were followed. Of the included participants, 224 (75.4%) were male and 73 (24.6%) were female. Ten patients (3.4%) developed a wound infection. Of these infections, five occurred on hands, four on extremities (not hands) and one on the face. One of these patients was African American, seven were Hispanic and two were Caucasian (p = 0.0005). Median wound closure time in the infection group was 867 min and in the non-infection group 330 min (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Without controlling various confounding factors, the median wound closure time for the lacerations in the wound infection group was statistically significantly longer than in the non-infection group.

Giant bulla mimicking pneumothorax.

It is usually thought by emergency physicians that the diagnosis of a pneumothorax is straightforward and easy to make and to treat, but the diagnosis may sometimes pose a challenge. The present report describes a case of a giant pulmonary bulla in a 40-year-old man that progressed to occupy almost the entire left hemithorax and also subsequently ruptured to produce a large left pneumothorax. The giant bulla was diagnosed only as a pneumothorax, and initially managed with a chest tube only. The differentiation between pneumothorax and a giant bulla can be very difficult, and often leads to inaccurate diagnosis and management. This case report demonstrates the clinical presentation of giant bulla and its complications such as pneumothorax and also highlights the difficulty in making this diagnosis and appropriately treating it. In this article, we emphasized how to differentiate between giant bulla and pneumothorax utilizing history, physical examination, and radiological studies including computed tomography (CT) scan.