Epidemiology of Hand Injuries That Presented to the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Facility in Suburban Mumbai, India: A Study Including 489 Patients

Background: Hand injuries are very common and responsible for a significant number of emergency department (ED) visits, most of which are not to hand specialists [1]. The functionality and outcome of hand injuries can vary significantly depending on the mechanism and pattern of injuries, which is why it is imperative for emergency physicians to recognize the complexities, and the potential repercussion of missed injuries in such cases. Objective: The aim of this study is to provide epidemiological information on hand injuries and their patterns. The objective is 1) to assess whether most hand injuries are superficial (simple), or involve underlying deeper structures (complex) and 2) to assess whether most hand injuries presented to the emergency department were managed by the emergency physician or plastic/orthopaedic surgeon. Methods: This retrospective single-centre observational study conducted at an emergency department in a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India collected data from hand trauma patients using a standardized documentation form. Demographic data, trauma-related data, and disposition plans were analysed. Results: A total of 489 cases sustained hand injuries over a period of one year. The patients were predominantly males in the 20 - 30 year age group and injuries were mainly sustained over the right hand. Most of the injuries were sustained at home (42%). The most common mechanism (34%) was sharp object injury (including needle-stick and other sharps in hospital), followed by blunt injury (30%). Among grievous hand injuries, door jamb was a mechanism noted in 11% of patients, accounting for 50% of all crush injuries. Lacerations were the most common pattern (24.7%) noticed, followed closely by fractures (23.3%). Digits II - IV were injured most commonly (54%), followed by carpals (14%) and the thumb (10%). Nearly 80% of the hand injuries were managed by emergency physicians alone, with 61% of cases involving superficial structures. Though 14% of the cases required plastic surgery intervention, the initial evaluation of all these patients was performed by the emergency physician. Conclusions: Our study highlights the burden of hand injuries on the emergency physician, as well as the odds of missed injuries, directly indicating the necessity of a thorough anatomical knowledge of the structures of the hand, and in turn, a proper physical examination. A dedicated registry for hand trauma would help quantify the mechanism and pattern of injuries,