comparative analysis of in-ground and above-ground swimming pool injuries

Download Comparative Analysis of In-Ground and Above-Ground Swimming Pool Injuries

Post on 27-Dec-2016




1 download

Embed Size (px)


  • PM&R Vol. 5, Iss. 9S, 2013 S157groups. Although patients with more severe CVD presented lowerow volume augmentation during call-up (r-0.64; P.003) andduring reabsorption maneuver (r-0.52; P.031), respectively inFV and GSV.Conclusions: Manual lymphatic drainage increases venous owin lower extremity with a magnitude that is independent of thespecic technique employed or the presence of CVD. Therefore,MLD may be an alternative strategy for treatment and prevention ofvenous stasis complications in CVD.

    Poster 51Comparative Analysis of In-Ground and Above-Ground Swimming Pool Injuries.Alexa T. Kwart, Student (University of Virginia, Charlot-tesville, VA, United States); Kara J. Kwart, Student; MarkR. Conaway, PhD; Paul T. Diamond, MD.

    Disclosures: A. T. Kwart, No Disclosures: I Have Nothing ToDisclose.Objective: To examine the demographics and injuries associatedwith in-ground and above-ground swimming pools.Design: Retrospective analysis of swimming pool-related injuriesreported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System overa 5-year period.Setting: General community.Participants: 532 persons who presented to emergency depart-ments with either in-ground (366) or above-ground (166) swim-ming pool-related injuries. Mean age was 29.5 years (SE 3.0), 58%male, 42% female.Interventions: Not applicable.Main Outcome Measures: Location and type of injury,mechanism of injury, treatment disposition.Results or Clinical Course: Injuries to the head and faceregion represented the most common site of all swimming pool-related injuries and were over twice as prevalent in in-ground(38%) than above-ground pools (20%) (P.002). Over half of allinjuries occurred in children under age 17. The most commontypes of swimming pool-related injuries included contusions/abrasions/lacerations (43%), fracture/dislocation (15%), andsprains/strains (14%). Submersion/drowning injuries were morecommon with in-ground pools (11%) compared with above-ground pools (2%) (P.039). Slipping/falling was the mostcommon mechanism of injury in both in-ground (27%) andabove-ground (50%) pools. Collisions while swimming repre-sented 20% of in-ground pool-related injuries and 13% of above-ground pool-related injuries. Jumping/diving accounted for 20%of injuries for both pool types. The majority (90%) of persons whopresented to the emergency room for all swimming pool-relatedinjuries were treated and released. However, 8% of injuriesfrom in-ground pools required hospitalization as compared withone percent of injuries from above-ground pools (P.05); the timing was signicantly pro-longed in the fourth group (70 age). In addition, the duration ofsEMG activity has also related to swallow type although theduration of sEMG was the same between dry and wet swallowing,there was a signicant difference in the excessive swallow. Theaverage amplitude of sEMG activity was irrelevant to age betweensubmental and infrahyoid group, at the same time. In the sub-mental group, the average amplitude of sEMG activity was notconcerned with swallow type either, however, in infrahyoidgroup,the average amplitude of sEMG activity was related toswallow type. The rst two groups, there was no signicantdifference in different swallow tests (p>.05). The third groups (51-70 age) and the forth group (70 age): there was no signicantdifference between dry swallow and wet swallow, but the averageamplitude of excessive swallowing was higher than dry swallow-ing, and was statistically signicant (P


View more >