This Article

Citations


Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Descriptive Epidemiology of Traumatic Injuries in 18890 Adults: a 5-Year-Study in a Tertiary Trauma Center in Iran


1 Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran
2 Department of Mathematical Sciences, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, IR Iran
*Corresponding author: Mohammad Hossein Nabian, Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran. Tel: +98-9126305095, E-mail: Hamooooooon@yahoo.com.
Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015 March; 6(1): e23129 , DOI: 10.5812/asjsm.23129
Article Type: Research Article; Received: Aug 28, 2014; Revised: Nov 14, 2014; Accepted: Dec 2, 2014; epub: Mar 20, 2015; ppub: Mar 2015

Abstract


Background: Basic epidemiological data can provide estimates when discussing disease burden and in the planning and provision of healthcare strategies. There is little quantitative information in the literature regarding prevalence of traumatic injuries from developing countries.

Objectives: The aim of the current preliminary study was to reveal the prevalence and age and gender distribution of various traumatic injuries in a tertiary referral orthopedic hospital in Iran.

Patients and Methods: In a prospective descriptive study, all traumatic injured patients attending the Orthopedic Trauma Unit of our center in a five year period were included. Demographic details, the cause of injury, injury classification and treatment were recorded. For each of the five-year age groups and each gender we calculated the numbers with fractures, dislocations, soft tissue injuries, ligamentous injuries and lacerations and derived average age and gender-specific prevalence as well as seasonal variations.

Results: A total of 18890 adults were admitted, 13870 (73.4%) males and 5020 (26.6%) females. There were 8204 (43.4%) fractures. The male fracture age distribution curve was unimodal and there was a detectable bimodal pattern in females. Under 65 years males are 3 times more likely to sustain a fracture than females which decreases to equal risk over the age of 65. The most common fracture site was distal radius/ulna (13.8%), followed by tibial diaphysis (8.8%), proximal femur (7.8%), finger phalanges (6.4%), metacarpals (6%) and metatarsals (5.9%). There were seasonal variations in fracture incidence with peaks in February, March and October. The least number of fractures occurred in June.

Conclusions: The risk of traumatic injuries is higher among specific age groups with different patterns emerging for men and women. Thus, the descriptive epidemiology will provide useful information for treatment or injury prevention strategies, resource allocation, and training priorities.

Keywords: Epidemiology; Trauma; Fractures; Developing Countries

1. Background


Musculoskeletal traumatic injuries are among the most common injuries that happen in rapidly developing countries (1-4). It contributes to a large burden of morbidity and mortality as well as psychiatric aspects (1-5). Basic epidemiological data such as prevalence, injury pattern, fracture type, sex and age distribution can provide estimates when discussing disease burden and in the planning and provision of healthcare (4, 5). Thus, it is essential for public health officials of all countries to have a good understanding of the magnitude and characteristics of the national extremities trauma or fracture rates in order to develop and evaluate injury prevention strategies, resource allocation, and training priorities (6, 7). Such strategies include measures to prevent accidents, to control exposure to risk, to reduce the severity of injuries sustained and to improve medical care adjusted for specific gender and age groups. They can be implemented by legislative or educational means to modify behaviors and the environment (6, 8). Successful strategies would be expected to alter the incidence, pattern and outcome of injury. Thus, epidemiological studies of injury need to be repeated at regular intervals in order to assess the current situation (9).


Nationwide databases can provide valuable resources for examining this issue in different populations. However, there is little quantitative information in the literature regarding prevalence of traumatic injuries within specific age and gender groups from developing countries (10, 11).

2. Objectives


The aim of the current preliminary study was to reveal the prevalence and age and gender distribution of various traumatic injuries in a tertiary referral orthopedic hospital in Iran.

3. Patients and Methods


We began a prospective study of patients sustaining a traumatic injury in February 2005. All traumatic injured patients attending the Orthopedic Trauma Unit of Shariati Hospital of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in a five year period from February 2005 to October 2010 were included. The study was based on the Shariati Hospital registry. Demographic details, the cause of injury, injury classification and treatment were recorded prospectively on a computer database for subsequent analysis. The medical ethics committee of the orthopedics department of Shariati hospital approved this study, and informed printed consent from the patients was obtained after explanation during admission registration.


For each of the five-year age groups and each gender we calculated the numbers with fractures, dislocations, soft tissue injuries, ligamentous injuries and lacerations and derived average age and gender-specific prevalence.


We used SPSS version 18.0 for analysis of data noting frequency, injury type and sex and age related differences. Distribution curves corresponding to each gender and age groups were presented. To evaluate the significance of differences over time and between groups, we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

4. Results


During the five year period, a total of 18890 adults were admitted, 13870 (73.4%) males and 5020 (26.6%) females. There were 8204 (43.4%) fractures, 5930 (72.3%) in males and 2274 (27.7%) in females. The other 10686 (56.6%) limb injuries were classified into five groups of soft tissue injuries, lacerations, ligamentous injuries, dislocations and others (including burns, amputations, foreign body, infections, etc.) Table 1. Subgroups age and sex distribution curves are presented in Figure 1.


There was a higher prevalence of limb traumatic injuries in men than women in all age groups (Gender ratio M/F = 2.7) which is more significant in laceration and dislocation and less prominent in ligamentous injury subgroups.


The total male limb injury incidence was unimodal with peak at 15 - 25 years and females had a smaller peak. Whereas the total male fracture incidence peaked at 20 - 30 years, there was a detectable bimodal pattern in females. Under 65 year males are 3 times more likely to sustain a fracture than females which decreases to equal risk over the age of 65 years.


The most common fracture site was distal radius/ulna (13.8%), followed by tibial diaphysis (8.8%), proximal femur (7.8%), finger phalanges (6.4%), metacarpals (6%) and metatarsals (5.9%). The age and gender specific prevalence of all fracture sites are classified and shown in Table 2. According to the previously described distribution curves for the age and gender related incidence of fractures (12). Table 3 shows the common fracture sites and the curve in which they fall into.


Table 1.
The Prevalence and Gender Ratio of Limb Injuries

Figure 1.
Overall and Subgroups’ age and Sex Distribution Curves

Table 2.
The Prevalence and Gender Ratio of Fractures

Table 3.
The Distribution Curves of Common Fracture Sites

5. Discussion


To our knowledge, this is the first large population based study carried out in Iran as a developing country in which a large group of patients in a long period of time have been evaluated. Due to lack of fracture surveillance systems in developing countries and inaccuracy of epidemiologic studies based on data from hospital coding systems, precise epidemiological study of fractures seems difficult (1, 4, 13, 14). We hereby report the prevalence of traumatic injuries and specially fractures in patients admitted to a major referral university hospital. Although the need for a national registry for trauma to help health service policies, medical education and researches is evident; we believe that our accuracy is comparable with that of other orthopedic data collection systems.


The prevalence of finger phalanx fractures recorded in our series is lower than in other reported studies (6, 15, 16) probably because many such patients are managed in the community without reference to the orthopedic trauma service and fail to be registered. Also the prevalence of vertebral fractures in our study was far lower than others. Our center is not a referral center for vertebral fractures and these fractures are treated in the region by neurosurgeons as well. However, our findings on age and gender incidence agree with those of other observers (15, 17, 18).


As in previous reports, we found that the most common fracture site was the distal forearm and proximal femur, finger phalanx and metacarpal fractures were among common fractures (15, 16, 19, 20). But comparing our results with those, some differences were to be expected given the differences in climate and demographics, as well as high energy trauma pattern in developing countries. Particularly the prevalence of diaphyseal fractures was higher in our population which may be due to high frequency of motor cycle accidents in developing countries (11, 21). Our data confirm that there is considerable variation in the incidence of fractures by age and sex. However, the distribution curves were almost similar to previous reports except for carpal and metacarpal fractures.


General predominance of men is in line with previous results (11, 15, 16, 19-21). The reason for this predominance is probably a combination of biological factors and social, gender-related differences related to activity and risk taking. Identification of these factors was not possible in this study, but it could be of value in the future (e.g. to help identify fracture-prone individuals in both sexes, and to aid in targeting of preventive measures).


Fractures occurring in people aged over 65 years and particularly over 75 years of age should be considered as fragility fractures, given the high prevalence of osteoporosis in these age groups. This assumption is confirmed by the finding that most of fractures are suffered by elderly women in this age group and the change in the male to female ratio from 3:1 to 1:1 after the age of 65. We found a steep rise in the incidence of wrist fractures, in women only, which begin as early as 45 years of age and peaks at 65 years with smaller increases in proximal humeral, proximal tibia, pelvis, metatarsal and ankle fractures which confirmed previous reports (8, 22-24). None of these increases were seen in men. Riggs and Melton describe a similar pattern, but with an increase only after 50 years of age and considered it to be due to postmenopausal osteoporosis (25).


Other reports confirm the steep rise in the incidence of fractures in women after the age of 40 years (15, 26-28).


The incidence of hip fractures showed a similar pattern in both genders, being uncommon in the young, with an exponential increase from the age of 65 years (Rockwood’s distribution curve F). There are three interacting factors: bone strength, the risk of falling, and the efficiency of neuromuscular responses which protect the skeleton. In the age group 50 to 74 years, Cooper et al found that reduced bone mass was a strong independent risk factor for hip fracture, but that over 75 years, osteoporosis may be less important than impairment of protective neuromuscular responses (29).


The epidemiology of diaphyseal fractures has been less well studied. Shaft fractures of cortical bone are considered to be associated with severe trauma, therefore having a different age incidence than cancellous bone fractures (21). In our study tibial diaphyseal fractures were the second common fracture which were not associated with a decrease in bone mass or the earlier onset of the menopause as in similar studies (7, 15, 23).


There was a seasonal variation in fracture incidence in our study with peaks in February-March and October. The traffic-related injuries occurred for the most part in April to October whereas falls reached their peak in late winter, February and March. Seasonal variations for all fractures have been described by other authors (19, 20, 30). We found that June is the month with the lowest number of fractures which can be explained by schools and universities and national examinations season. Knowledge of seasonal variations in fracture incidence might help in strategy planning as in resources allocation, preventive measures targeting and public health education (31).


Although the strength of this study was the use of a large sample, this study should also be interpreted in light of its shortcomings. It involved one center only, so our interpretation of the results can only be applied to a specific population. We did not focus on mechanism of injuries, medical comorbidities and other risk factors which could be of value in the future.


To the best of our knowledge this is the largest reported study of the epidemiology of traumatic injuries from a developing country. We have reported age, sex, and fracture specific prevalence rates for traumatic injuries and specially fractures in 18890 adults admitted in a tertiary referral hospital. The risk of traumatic injuries is higher among specific age groups with different patterns emerging for men and women. Thus, the descriptive epidemiology will provide useful information for treatment or prevention strategy planning of fractures.

References


  • 1. Mock C, Cherian MN. The global burden of musculoskeletal injuries: challenges and solutions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(10):2306-16. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 2. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. The Lancet. 2006;367(9524):1747-57.
  • 3. Krug EG, Sharma GK, Lozano R. The global burden of injuries. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(4):523-6. [PubMed]
  • 4. WHO . The Injury Chartbook: A graphical overview of the global burden of injuries. Geneva: World Hhealth Organization; 2002. ISBN 92 4 156220 X.
  • 5. Mayou R, Tyndel S, Bryant B. Long-term outcome of motor vehicle accident injury. Psychosom Med. 1997;59(6):578-84. [PubMed]
  • 6. Ootes D, Lambers KT, Ring DC. The epidemiology of upper extremity injuries presenting to the emergency department in the United States. Hand (N Y). 2012;7(1):18-22. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 7. McBirnie J. The epidemiology of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(3):417-21.
  • 8. Piscitelli P, Brandi ML, Chitano G, Argentiero A, Neglia C, Distante A, et al. Epidemiology of fragility fractures in Italy. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2011;8(2):29-34. [PubMed]
  • 9. Sutcliffe AJ. Epidemiology of Trauma. In: Gullo A, editor(s). Anaesthesia, Pain, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine — A.P.I.C.E. Springer Milan; 1999. p. 525-9.ISBN 978-88-470-0051-3. [DOI]
  • 10. Ebrahimzadeh MH. National trauma registry center, as a backbone of trauma management and research. Arch Trauma Res. 2012;1(3):87-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 11. Yang NP, Chen HC, Phan DV, Yu IL, Lee YH, Chan CL, et al. Epidemiological survey of orthopedic joint dislocations based on nationwide insurance data in Taiwan, 2000-2005. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:253. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 12. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 13. Foubister G, Hughes SP. Fractures of the femoral neck: a retrospective and prospective study. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1989;34(5):249-52. [PubMed]
  • 14. Smith SH, Kershaw C, Thomas IH, Botha JL. PIS and DRGs: coding inaccuracies and their consequences for resource management. J Public Health Med. 1991;13(1):40-1. [PubMed]
  • 15. Singer BR, McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Christie J. Epidemiology of fractures in 15,000 adults: the influence of age and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(2):243-8. [PubMed]
  • 16. Hedstrom EM, Svensson O, Bergstrom U, Michno P. Epidemiology of fractures in children and adolescents. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):148-53. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 17. Harma M, Heliovaara M, Aromaa A, Knekt P. Thoracic spine compression fractures in Finland. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;(205):188-94. [PubMed]
  • 18. Garraway WM, Stauffer RN, Kurland LT, O'Fallon WM. Limb fractures in a defined population. I. Frequency and distribution. Mayo Clin Proc. 1979;54(11):701-7. [PubMed]
  • 19. Landin LA. Fracture patterns in children. Analysis of 8,682 fractures with special reference to incidence, etiology and secular changes in a Swedish urban population 1950-1979. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1983;202:1-109. [PubMed]
  • 20. Tiderius CJ, Landin L, Duppe H. Decreasing incidence of fractures in children: an epidemiological analysis of 1,673 fractures in Malmo, Sweden, 1993-1994. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70(6):622-6. [PubMed]
  • 21. Madadi F, Vahid Farahmandi M, Eajazi A, Daftari Besheli L, Madadi F, Nasri Lari M. Epidemiology of adult tibial shaft fractures: a 7-year study in a major referral orthopedic center in Iran. Med Sci Monit. 2010;16(5):CR217-21. [PubMed]
  • 22. Innocenti M, Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F. Proximal femural fractures: epidemiology. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2009;6(2):117-9. [PubMed]
  • 23. Pinheiro Mde M, Eis SR. Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures in Brazil: what we have and what we need. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2010;54(2):164-70. [PubMed]
  • 24. Nguyen TV, Center JR, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA. Risk factors for proximal humerus, forearm, and wrist fractures in elderly men and women: the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;153(6):587-95. [PubMed]
  • 25. Riggs BL, Melton LJ,3rd. Involutional osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(26):1676-86. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 26. Alffram PA, Bauer GC. Epidemiology of fractures of the forearm. A biomechanical investigation of bone strength. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962;44-A:105-14. [PubMed]
  • 27. Knowelden J, Buhr AJ, Dunbar O. Incidence of Fractures in Persons over 35 Years of Age. A Report to the M.R.C. Working Party on Fractures in the Elderly. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1964;18:130-41. [PubMed]
  • 28. Miller SW, Evans JG. Fractures of the distal forearm in Newcastle: an epidemiological survey. Age Ageing. 1985;14(3):155-8. [PubMed]
  • 29. Cooper C, Barker DJ, Morris J, Briggs RS. Osteoporosis, falls, and age in fracture of the proximal femur. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987;295(6589):13-5. [PubMed]
  • 30. Lyons RA, Sellstrom E, Delahunty AM, Loeb M, Varilo S. Incidence and cause of fractures in European districts. Arch Dis Child. 2000;82(6):452-5. [PubMed]
  • 31. Bulajic-Kopjar M. Seasonal variations in incidence of fractures among elderly people. Inj Prev. 2000;6(1):16-9. [PubMed]

Table 1.

The Prevalence and Gender Ratio of Limb Injuries

Injury Classification Total Number Male Female Gender Ratio, M/F Prevalence (%)
Fractures 8204 5930 2274 2.6 44
Soft Tissue Injuries 3989 2900 1089 2.6 21
Lacerations 2419 2012 407 4.9 13
Ligamentous Injuries 2081 1329 752 1.7 11
Dislocations 628 508 120 4.2 3
Others 1569 1191 378 3.1 8
Total 18890 13870 5020 2.7 100

Table 2.

The Prevalence and Gender Ratio of Fractures

Fracture Classification Male Female Total Number Gender Ratio (M/F) Prevalence (%)
Distal Radius/Ulna 756 365 1121 2 13.8
Tibial Diaphysis 612 112 724 5.5 8.8
Proximal Femur 356 279 635 1.3 7.8
Finger Phalange 394 133 527 3 6.4
Metacarpal 407 90 497 4.5 6
Metatarsal 329 159 488 2 5.9
Ankle 323 119 442 2.7 5.4
Carpus 310 112 422 2.7 5.4
Forearm 227 71 298 3.2 3.6
Clavicle 231 61 292 3.8 3.5
Femoral Diaphysis 182 53 235 3.4 2.9
Proximal Tibia 182 57 239 3.2 2.9
Pelvis 118 95 213 1.2 2.6
Proximal Humerus 130 84 214 1.5 2.6
Fibula 160 36 196 4.4 2.4
Humeral Diaphysis 121 59 180 2 2.2
Distal Humerus 116 57 173 2 2.1
Proximal Forearm 122 44 166 2.8 2
Calcaneus 101 23 124 4.4 1.5
Toe Phalynges 87 22 109 4 1.3
Patella 72 23 95 3.1 1.1
Distal Femur 52 34 86 1.5 1
Spine 66 18 84 3.7 1
Acetabulum 63 17 80 3.7 0.92
Scapula 57 15 72 3.8 0.9
Midfoot 31 12 43 2.6 0.53
Distal Tibia 29 7 36 4.1 0.42
Talus 20 13 33 1.5 0.41
Cesamoid 1 1 2 1 0.02
Others 273 105 378 2.6 4.6

Table 3.

The Distribution Curves of Common Fracture Sites

Fracture Site Distribution Curve
Distal Radius/Ulna A
Tibial Diaphysis B
Proximal Femur F
Finger Phalange B
Metacarpal C
Metatarsal A
Ankle A
Carpus D

Figure 1.

Overall and Subgroups’ age and Sex Distribution Curves
A) All traumatic injuries, B) Fractures, C) Dislocations, D) Ligamentous injuries, E) Soft tissue injuries, F) Lacerations.