4.2 Article

Incidence Estimates and Demographics of Scaphoid Fracture in the US Population

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
卷 35A, 期 8, 页码 1242-1245

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.05.017

关键词

Epidemiology; incidence; scaphoid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The epidemiology of scaphoid fracture is based mostly on retrospective analyses of small population centers. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of scaphoid fractures in a large national population database. Methods The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) is a representative sample of patients that is weighted to provide estimates of various injuries in the United States presenting to emergency rooms. Data on wrist fractures obtained from NEISS were used to estimate the incidence of scaphoid fractures in the United States between 2002 and 2006. We could not distinguish true scaphoid fractures from suspected scaphoid fractures. Demographics, location, mechanism, and sports participation were also recorded. Results A total of 507 injuries coded as fractures of the scaphoid were identified in the database from 2002 to 2006. According to the methodology of the NEISS sample, this corresponds to an estimated 21,481 scaphoid fractures among 909,309 total wrist fractures nationwide (2.4%) and an estimated incidence of scaphoid fractures of 1.47 fractures per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.63). Conclusions The estimated incidence of scaphoid fractures using U.S. census data is an order of magnitude less than the estimates in prior studies. If the data represent both suspected and true fractures, the incidence of true scaphoid fractures is likely an order of magnitude less than our estimates. Young males and persons between 10 and 19 years of age are at highest risk for scaphoid fracture. (J Hand Surg 2010;35A:1242-1245. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据