Search

Objective To determine the features that differentiate earthquake-related crush extremity fractures from non-earthquake-related extremity fractures by using digital radiography ( DR) and multidetector row computed tomography ( MDCT). Methods Six hundred and twenty-three consecutive victims with crush extremity fractures arising from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, including 611 undergoing DR and 12 undergoing MDCT, entered the test group, and 316 consecutive victims with non-earthquake-related extremity fractures, including 301 undergoing DR and 15 undergoing MDCT, were enrolled in the control group. Image data were reviewed retrospectively and statistically between groups focusing on the anatomic distributions, numbers and types of extremity fractures. Results Fractures involving multiple extremities were more likely in the test group than the control group (88/623 vs 27/316 victims, P < 0.05). Fractures involving multiple bones (336/623 vs 112/316 victims) and comminuted fractures (324/623 vs 78/316 victims) were seen more frequently in the test group than the control group with both occurring predominantly in the tibia and fibula (all P < 0.05). Conclusion Earthquake-related crush fractures of extremities are more likely than non-earthquake-related extremity fractures to involve multiple extremities, multiple bones and to be comminuted. The lower extremities, predominantly the tibia and fibula, are more likely to be involved. This has implications for emergency and disaster planning in earthquake-prone regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the profile of pelvic crush fractures in earthquake victims on digital radiography (DR) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixty-seven consecutive survivors of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake with pelvic crush fractures classified into types according to the Tile classification system, entered our study. One hundred and thirty-nine, and 28 patients underwent DR and MDCT scans, respectively. Data were reviewed retrospectively focusing on anatomical sites, numbers, and classification of pelvic ring fractures.Results: Pelvic fractures occurred in the pubis in 88 patients (52.7%), in other pelvic bones in 32 (19.16%), and in both the pubis and other pelvic bones in 47 (28.14%). Pubic fractures were more common than fractures of other pelvic bones, and involvement of bilateral pubis was more common than that of the left or right pubis (all p < 0.05). As for the numbers of pelvic bones involved, multiple fractures occurred in 48.52% patients (81 out of 167) composed predominantly of fractures of two bones in 58.02% (47 out of 81), and were seen more often in bilateral pubis than in any other pelvic bones (p < 0.05). Regarding classifications of pelvic ring fractures, they were Type A in 31 patients (18.56%); Type B in 72 (43.11%), predominantly Type B2 in 26 (15.58%) and Type B3 in 28 (16.77%); and Type C in 64 (38.32%), predominantly Type C3 in 40 (23.95%).Conclusion: Pelvic crush fractures particularly including multiple pelvic fractures, occurring predominantly in bilateral pubis, and composed of Type C3 followed by Type B3 and Type B2, could be considered to be the profile of pelvic crush fractures in an earthquake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]