Search

Introduction: All modern military jet aircraft are equipped with rocket-assisted ejection systems. Jet aircraft operate in the majority of the conflict regions throughout the world, and in nearly all modern countries during peacetime. Civilian and military emergency services may be called upon to treat aircrews that have ejected and should be familiar with the common injury patterns associated with aircraft ejection., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature were undertaken using the preferred reporting for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 1 January 1971 and 15 June 2019 were included. Our primary outcomes of interest were mortality and major injury rates. The I 2 test was used to assess heterogeneity among the included studies, and data were pooled under random effects models. In addition, all ejection cases in the Israeli Air Force (IAF) between 1990 and 2019 were studied. The data were manually extracted from the accident records and the electronic medical records system., Results: We identified 14 studies that included 1710 aircrew ejections. Heterogeneity was high (I 2 >75%). Pooled mean mortality and major injury rates were 10.5% (95% CI 6.8-14.8%) and 29.8% (95% CI 20.1-40.6%), respectively. The major injuries included spinal fractures (61.6%), extremity trauma (27.3%), and head trauma (8.9%). During the IAF study period, a total of 37 aircrew ejected from 26 IAF aircraft. The fatality rate was 5.4% and 18.9% suffered major injuries., Conclusions: Although ejection is lifesaving, it is associated with unique injury patterns that should be addressed during clinical evaluation. Because of their high prevalence, spinal precautions are paramount until spinal injury can be ruled out, generally by advanced imaging. Looking forward, injury patterns will continue to evolve in parallel with improving ejection seat systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Unverified penicillin allergy label has negative health implications. To address this, several delabeling methods have been proposed., Objectives: To appraise the long-term outcomes of the penicillin allergy evaluation in ambulatory patients, focusing on subsequent use of penicillins in individuals found not allergic. A secondary objective was to examine the consistency between the evaluation's recommendations and the allergy label., Methods: A retrospective medical records review and phone survey were carried out in ambulatory patients who were evaluated for suspected penicillin allergy in our allergy unit. Patients with an uneventful oral challenge test (OCT) were interviewed regarding subsequent use of penicillins. Medical records were examined for antibiotic prescriptions and purchases. The records were also investigated for existing/erased penicillin allergy label and its consistency with the allergy evaluation., Results: Six hundred thirty-nine patients with an uneventful OCT were available for the survey. During a 56-month follow-up, 70% (447 patients) had used penicillins at least once. One hundred ninety-two patients (30%) did not use penicillins. The main reason for not using penicillins was lack of a clinical indication. Three hundred thirty-five patients (51.22%) carried a penicillin allergy label in their electronic medical file in spite of an uneventful OCT., Conclusions: Penicillin allergy annulling via OCT has proven to be effective. Most of the patients who previously avoided penicillins have reused penicillins safely., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)