Be careful where you aim: craniomaxillofacial trauma from the utility of metal hammers.
Craniomaxillofacial trauma
DIY
Hammers
Journal
Oral and maxillofacial surgery
ISSN: 1865-1569
Titre abrégé: Oral Maxillofac Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101319632
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
26
04
2021
accepted:
19
08
2021
pubmed:
16
9
2021
medline:
20
8
2022
entrez:
15
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A hammer is a popular tool among the "do it yourself" (DIY) population who pursue home-improvement projects. While we are aware that hammers have health hazards, no study has yet to explore the craniomaxillofacial injuries that could arise from the use of hammers. The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of craniomaxillofacial injuries from hammers. This is a 20-year cross-sectional study conducted using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). Injuries from hammers were included in this study if they involved the head, face, eyeball, mouth, or ear. The study predictor was the mechanism of injury. The study outcome was the admission rate from the emergency department (ED) and anatomical site injured. Patient and injury characteristics were compared using chi-squared and independent sample tests. Our final sample had a total of 2967 hammer-induced injuries. Most of the sample consisted of white (55.3%) males (80.2%). Summer was the most injury-congested season (30.1%). The majority of the patients were over the age of 18 (65.6%). Laceration (47.3%) was the most common primary diagnosis, followed by contusion/abrasion (21.9%). The head (42.9%) was the most commonly injured craniomaxillofacial region followed by the face (29.0%). Craniomaxillofacial injury most frequently transpired at the patient's home (63.6%). Concerning the mechanism of injury, accidentally self-induced injuries with a hammer were the most common (32.4%). Patients who were injured from the debris were more likely (P < 0.01) to be admitted (7.6%) relative to patients who were not (2.5%). The head was most likely to get injured from a falling hammer (P < 0.01). The face was most likely to get injured through accidental self-injury (P < 0.01). The eyeball was most likely to get injured from debris (P < 0.01). The mouth was, similar to the face, most likely to get injured through accidental self-injury (P < 0.01). Craniomaxillofacial injuries secondary to hammers illustrated a predilection to the head. Hammer falling from a height was most likely to injure the head. Debris from hammer strikes was the most dangerous mechanism of injury and was most likely to injure the eyeball. Hence, the authors urge the use of protective gear for the head (i.e., helmet) and eyeball (i.e., glasses) when handling hammers for constructive purposes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34523039
doi: 10.1007/s10006-021-00998-0
pii: 10.1007/s10006-021-00998-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
423-429Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hammer. Wikipedia. Accessed January 22, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer
Vila B. 3 Types of hammers every DIYer should know (and when to use them). bobvila. Accessed February 2, 2021. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/1092-types-of-hammers/
Owen P, Keightley SJ, Elkington AR (1987) The hazards of hammers. Injury 18:61–62
doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(87)90390-1
Lee KC, Stanbouly D, Chuang SK (2020) Are backyard waterslides as dangerous as public waterslides: a review of 1,823 head and neck injuries. The Journal of craniofacial surgery
Lee KC, Naik K, Wu BW, Karlis V, Chuang SK, Eisig SB (2020) Are motorized scooters associated with more severe craniomaxillofacial injuries? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 78:1583–1589
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.04.035
Dandu KV, Carniol ET, Sanghvi S, Baredes S, Eloy JA (2017) A 10-year analysis of head and neck injuries involving nonpowder firearms. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Surgery 156(5):853–856
doi: 10.1177/0194599817695546
Roper-Hall MJ (1954) Review of 555 cases of intraocular foreign body with special reference to prognosis. Br J Ophthalmol 38:65
doi: 10.1136/bjo.38.2.65