[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.0.26. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 1992

Lacerations Involving Glass Revisited-Reply

Author Affiliations

Department of Pediatrics Albert Einstein College of Medicine Bronx Municipal Hospital Center Jacobi Hospital Room 1w20 Pelham Parkway and Eastchester Road 10461 Bronx, NY
Department of Pediatrics University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Pa)

Am J Dis Child. 1992;146(12):1422. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1992.02160240032014

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply.—Miele raises the issue of what role the length of the laceration has in the practitioner's ability to detect glass fragments. In our study population, there was no difference in length between the wounds that contained glass (mean length, 2.3 cm; median length, 2 cm; range, 0.5 to 6 cm) and those that did not (mean length, 2.4 cm; median length, 2 cm; range 0.2 to 15 cm). In addition, there was no association between the inability to visualize the bottom of the wound and the length of the wound (2.6 cm vs 2.3 cm; not significant).

As we discussed in our article, we were unable to measure the degree of examiner confidence that the bottom of the would had been visualized. Although our data did not show an association between the length of the wound and the inability to see the bottom of the wound, we did

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×