Risk Factors for a False-Negative Examination in Complete Upper Extremity Nerve Lacerations

The Hand Pub Date : 2019-08-13 DOI:10.1177/1558944719866865
Scott N. Loewenstein, Reed Wulbrecht, V. Leonhard, Sarah E. Sasor, Julia A. Cook, L. Timsina, Joshua M. Adkinson
{"title":"Risk Factors for a False-Negative Examination in Complete Upper Extremity Nerve Lacerations","authors":"Scott N. Loewenstein, Reed Wulbrecht, V. Leonhard, Sarah E. Sasor, Julia A. Cook, L. Timsina, Joshua M. Adkinson","doi":"10.1177/1558944719866865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Many patients with complete nerve lacerations after upper extremity trauma have a documented normal peripheral nerve examination at the time of initial evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether physician-, patient-, and injury-related factors increase the risk of false-negative nerve examinations. Methods: A statewide health information exchange was used to identify complete upper extremity nerve lacerations subsequently confirmed by surgical exploration at 1 pediatric and 2 adult level I trauma centers in a single city from January 2013 to January 2017. Charts were manually reviewed to build a database that included Glasgow Coma Scale score, urine drug screen results, blood alcohol level, presence of concomitant trauma, type of injury, level of injury, laterality, initial provider examination, and initial specialist examination. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for a false-negative examination. Results: Two hundred eighty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. The overall false-negative examination rate was 32.5% at initial encounter, which was higher among emergency medicine physicians compared with extremity subspecialists (P < .001) and among trauma surgeons compared with surgical subspecialists (P = .002). The false-negative rate decreased to 8% at subsequent encounter (P < .001). Risk factors for a false-negative nerve examination included physician specialty, a gunshot wound mechanism of injury, injury at the elbow, and age greater than 71 years. Conclusion: There is a high false-negative rate among upper extremity neurotmesis injuries. Patients with an injury pattern that may lead to nerve injury warrant prompt referral to an upper extremity specialist in an effort to optimize outcomes.","PeriodicalId":76630,"journal":{"name":"The Hand","volume":"16 1","pages":"432 - 438"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1558944719866865","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Hand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944719866865","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Many patients with complete nerve lacerations after upper extremity trauma have a documented normal peripheral nerve examination at the time of initial evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether physician-, patient-, and injury-related factors increase the risk of false-negative nerve examinations. Methods: A statewide health information exchange was used to identify complete upper extremity nerve lacerations subsequently confirmed by surgical exploration at 1 pediatric and 2 adult level I trauma centers in a single city from January 2013 to January 2017. Charts were manually reviewed to build a database that included Glasgow Coma Scale score, urine drug screen results, blood alcohol level, presence of concomitant trauma, type of injury, level of injury, laterality, initial provider examination, and initial specialist examination. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for a false-negative examination. Results: Two hundred eighty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. The overall false-negative examination rate was 32.5% at initial encounter, which was higher among emergency medicine physicians compared with extremity subspecialists (P < .001) and among trauma surgeons compared with surgical subspecialists (P = .002). The false-negative rate decreased to 8% at subsequent encounter (P < .001). Risk factors for a false-negative nerve examination included physician specialty, a gunshot wound mechanism of injury, injury at the elbow, and age greater than 71 years. Conclusion: There is a high false-negative rate among upper extremity neurotmesis injuries. Patients with an injury pattern that may lead to nerve injury warrant prompt referral to an upper extremity specialist in an effort to optimize outcomes.
完全性上肢神经撕裂伤假阴性检查的危险因素
背景:许多上肢创伤后完全神经撕裂的患者在初步评估时都有记录正常的周围神经检查。本研究的目的是确定医师、患者和损伤相关因素是否会增加神经检查假阴性的风险。方法:采用全州卫生信息交换系统,对2013年1月至2017年1月在同一城市的1家儿科和2家成人一级创伤中心进行手术探查确认的完全性上肢神经撕裂。手工检查图表以建立一个数据库,其中包括格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分、尿液药物筛查结果、血液酒精水平、伴随创伤的存在、损伤类型、损伤水平、侧边性、最初的提供者检查和最初的专家检查。进行双变量和多变量分析以评估假阴性检查的危险因素。结果:288例患者符合纳入标准。初次接触时的总体假阴性检查率为32.5%,急诊内科医生高于四肢专科医生(P < 0.001),创伤外科医生高于外科专科医生(P = 0.002)。在随后的治疗中,假阴性率降至8% (P < 0.001)。神经检查假阴性的危险因素包括医师专业、枪伤损伤机制、肘部损伤和年龄大于71岁。结论:上肢神经损伤的假阴性率较高。损伤模式可能导致神经损伤的患者需要及时转诊到上肢专家,以努力优化结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信