Title |
Frostbite: a practical approach to hospital management
|
---|---|
Published in |
Extreme Physiology & Medicine, April 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-7648-3-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Charles Handford, Pauline Buxton, Katie Russell, Caitlin EA Imray, Scott E McIntosh, Luanne Freer, Amalia Cochran, Christopher HE Imray |
Abstract |
Frostbite presentation to hospital is relatively infrequent, and the optimal management of the more severely injured patient requires a multidisciplinary integration of specialist care. Clinicians with an interest in wilderness medicine/freezing cold injury have the awareness of specific potential interventions but may lack the skill or experience to implement the knowledge. The on-call specialist clinician (vascular, general surgery, orthopaedic, plastic surgeon or interventional radiologist), who is likely to receive these patients, may have the skill and knowledge to administer potentially limb-saving intervention but may be unaware of the available treatment options for frostbite. Over the last 10 years, frostbite management has improved with clear guidelines and management protocols available for both the medically trained and winter sports enthusiasts. Many specialist surgeons are unaware that patients with severe frostbite injuries presenting within 24 h of the injury may be good candidates for treatment with either TPA or iloprost. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of field frostbite care and a practical guide to the hospital management of frostbite with a stepwise approach to thrombolysis and prostacyclin administration for clinicians. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 27 | 44% |
United States | 10 | 16% |
Australia | 4 | 6% |
Ireland | 2 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
Slovenia | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 16 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 38 | 61% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 27% |
Scientists | 5 | 8% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 165 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 23 | 14% |
Researcher | 20 | 12% |
Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 8% |
Other | 31 | 19% |
Unknown | 43 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 87 | 53% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 7% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
Sports and Recreations | 3 | 2% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 1% |
Other | 13 | 8% |
Unknown | 45 | 27% |