Background: Thousands of Americans sustain injuries from various household appliances each year, though injury patterns have not been well characterized. We thus sought to determine the incidence, characteristics, and trends of household appliance-related hand injuries over the past decade. Methods: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database (NEISS) was queried from 2010 through 2019. Our analysis grouped patients into 10-year age groups. We defined types of appliances and injuries Chi-square tests were used to compare the most common injury mechanisms by age group. Results: Between 2010 and 2019, 30,336 total cases of home workshop equipment-related upper extremity injuries were recorded; 2,574 (8.48%) of these affected females, compared to 27,762 (91.52%) of the cases affecting males. Across all age groups, males were between 6 and 13 more times likely to be injured than females (p < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2019, we recorded a decline in total injuries from 168,795 to 147,584, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.68 (p = 0.031). The appliances most likely to injure those in their 10s through 40s were mechanical tools such as screwdrivers. Meanwhile, those in their 50s through 70s were most likely to be injured by saws. Both amputations and avulsions were found to significantly increase with age (p = 0.038, p = 0.027, respectively). Most injuries result from manual tools and saws. Discussion: Males are significantly more likely to incur injuries than females from maintenance equipment, and risk of avulsions and amputations increase significantly with age. This aligns with previous research which also suggested that older saws were most likely to injure older individuals; namely, following new regulations on saws, older adults were more likely to be affected. This is especially worrisome in light of recent research showing that older adults with amputations are less likely to be offered replantations. Overall, these results can continue to guide and optimize community interventions on an epidemiological basis.
Background: Thousands of Americans sustain injuries from various household appliances each year, though injury patterns have not been well characterized. We thus sought to determine the incidence, characteristics, and trends of household appliance-related hand injuries over the past decade. Methods: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database (NEISS) was queried from 2010 through 2019. Our analysis grouped patients into 10-year age groups. We defined types of appliances and injuries Chi-square tests were used to compare the most common injury mechanisms by age group. Results: Between 2010 and 2019, 30,336 total cases of home workshop equipment-related upper extremity injuries were recorded; 2,574 (8.48%) of these affected females, compared to 27,762 (91.52%) of the cases affecting males. Across all age groups, males were between 6 and 13 more times likely to be injured than females (p < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2019, we recorded a decline in total injuries from 168,795 to 147,584, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.68 (p = 0.031). The appliances most likely to injure those in their 10s through 40s were mechanical tools such as screwdrivers. Meanwhile, those in their 50s through 70s were most likely to be injured by saws. Both amputations and avulsions were found to significantly increase with age (p = 0.038, p = 0.027, respectively). Most injuries result from manual tools and saws. Discussion: Males are significantly more likely to incur injuries than females from maintenance equipment, and risk of avulsions and amputations increase significantly with age. This aligns with previous research which also suggested that older saws were most likely to injure older individuals; namely, following new regulations on saws, older adults were more likely to be affected. This is especially worrisome in light of recent research showing that older adults with amputations are less likely to be offered replantations. Overall, these results can continue to guide and optimize community interventions on an epidemiological basis.
Authors: Rodrigo Guerra Sabongi; Jaime Piccaro Erazo; Vinicius Ynoe de Moraes; Carlos Henrique Fernandes; João Baptista Gomes Dos Santos; Flávio Faloppa; João Carlos Belloti Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 2.365