著者: Michael Prats, Michael O'Connell, Austin Wellock, Nicholas E Kman
雑誌名: J Emerg Med. 2013 Jun;44(6):e375-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.11.058. Epub 2013 Mar 9.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Fishhook injuries are common among people who fish for recreation, but can be encountered in anyone who has handled a fishhook. They represent a unique challenge for Emergency Physicians who seek to remove them without causing further tissue damage from the barbed nature of the hook.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to discuss the techniques available to providers in the removal of a barbed fishhook by illustrating actual cases seen in the Emergency Department.
CASE REPORTS: We present two cases of patients with fishhook injuries. We discuss the proper assessment of these injuries. We describe techniques for removing a barbed hook from a patient's skin and offer images to guide management.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the unique nature of fishhook injuries and awareness of techniques to manage them are essential to the practicing Emergency Physician.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PMID
23478177 J Emerg Med. 2013 Jun;44(6):e375-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jem･･･
著者: Scott McMaster, David J Ledrick, Julie M Stausmire, Kristina Burgard
雑誌名: Wilderness Environ Med. 2014 Dec;25(4):416-24. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2014.06.001. Epub 2014 Oct 1.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a fishhook removal simulation workshop using investigator-developed diagrams, practice models, and a teaching video.
METHODS: This was a descriptive, prospective educational study with Institutional Review Board approval. The primary outcomes were the learner's perception of ease of learning, performance ability, and amount of tissue damage for each technique. A 2¾-minute educational video, instructional visual diagrams, and a simulated model were created to teach 4 techniques: simple retrograde, string pull, advance and cut, and needle cover. Learners performed each technique on a model to assess whether they could remove the hook on the first attempt for each technique. They then rank ordered their technique preferences for ease of learning, performance, perceived tissue damage, and overall choice.
RESULTS: Of a total of 34 participants who completed the study, 71% of learners were emergency medicine residents or faculty, 65% were male, 42% were recreational fishers, and 68% had previous fishhook removal experience. On first attempt, more than 88% of participants demonstrated successful fishhook removal using all techniques except needle cover (47%). Simple retrograde was rated easiest to learn (74%) and perform (59%), was perceived to cause the least tissue damage (44%), and was the overall preferred technique. Needle cover was ranked hardest to learn (88%) and perform (82%), was perceived to cause the worst tissue damage (41%), and was the overall least preferred technique.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe a simulation training program for uncomplicated fishhook removal, and to experimentally evaluate physician learning and preferences for fishhook removal techniques. After a brief educational session, physicians could effectively use all techniques except needle cover. Simple retrograde was the overall preferred technique.
Copyright © 2014 Wilderness Medical Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PMID
25282182 Wilderness Environ Med. 2014 Dec;25(4):416-24. doi: 10.･･･
著者: William L Atkinson, Larry K Pickering, Benjamin Schwartz, Bruce G Weniger, John K Iskander, John C Watson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
雑誌名: MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002 Feb 8;51(RR-2):1-35.
Abstract/Text
This report is a revision of General Recommendations on Immunization and updates the 1994 statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (CDC. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 1994;43[No. RR-1]:1-38). The principal changes include expansion of the discussion of vaccination spacing and timing, recommendations for vaccinations administered by an incorrect route, information regarding needle-free injection technology, vaccination of children adopted from countries outside the United States, timing of live-virus vaccination and tuberculosis screening, expansion of the discussion and tables of contraindications and precautions regarding vaccinations, and addition of a directory of immunization resources. These recommendations are not comprehensive for each vaccine. The most recent ACIP recommendations for each specific vaccine should be consulted for additional details. This report, ACIP recommendations for each vaccine, and other information regarding immunization can be accessed at CDCs National Immunization Program website at http.//www.cdc.gov/nip (accessed October 11, 2001).
PMID
11848294 MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002 Feb 8;51(RR-2):1-35.
