4.1 Article

Occupational Hand-Related Injuries at a Major Tertiary Care Burn and Reconstructive Center in Pakistan

期刊

CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.10444

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Work-related hand injuries are usually a consequence of mechanical force on hand. This study retrospectively investigated the occurrence of work-related hand injuries in patients belonging to different age groups, gender, educational status, occupation, etc. Methodology This cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2018 to December 2019 at the Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Demographic and clinical characteristics were gathered through a structured questionnaire based on relevant literature. Patients were assessed using the purposive sampling technique and written informed consent was taken from each participant. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical tests were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Results One hundred and twenty participants were interviewed, and 87.5% of patients did not have a vascular injury, and 62.5% of patients had an associated fracture. Over half of them (57.5%) had injuries of their dominant hands. Most of the injuries (67.5%) involved fingers while the rest of the injuries were found either in the palm or the dorsum of the hand. Among the causes of accidents, the majority didn't wear or wore unfitted gloves (76.6%) and the main causes of the hand injuries were related to defects in the workplace (53.3%). Lack of concentration (11.7%), wearing loose or unfitted clothes or jewelry (19.2%), lack of machine maintenance (29.2%), and a patient's chronic disease (1.66%) were among the less frequent causes. Conclusion It is important to understand the relationship between occupational and hand injuries. It provides an insight into the lack of protection and guidance of workers.

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

4.1
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