>Where do I start?
--> DON'T start. That is the point I was making! I agree with and have read
your contributions on this before. I think that's 100% CORRECT. I was merely
(and evidently poorly) trying to make the point that the "need" to name this
fracture after someone IS THE PROBLEM. Instead of this, describing it in the
way which makes you then realise it's a completely different entity - that's
my preference. I was trying to make it obvious how NOT a Colles this was
with my description of the patient, etc. and still it was CALLED a Colles...
Please forgive, Rowley. I'm on your side...
-----------
1. This is not a Colles' #. It may be a distal radial fracture with
dorsal angulation, but it is not what he described. Colles (1773-1843)
described a 'fracture of the carpal extremity of the radius' in 1814 in
female patients over 65 years old. Thus a distal radial fracture in a
younger patient is technically not a Colles' fracture. This is a
practical reminder; fractures in the younger patient in general have
required more force to break the bone and will require more force to set
it. They also need as good an anatomical reduction as possible.
No A&E SHO should be even attempting to reduce this. Our rules are to
refer all under 50s to the orthopods, 50-55 discuss and reduce over 55s.
Best wishes
Rowley.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doc Holiday
Sent: 13 December 2004 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Defining who will not survive out of hospital cardiac
arrest
Ah, but then we wouldn't be having conversations about Colles fractures,
now that would be a shame, wouldn't it..?
--> I think that's been on the list before... Just last week I had a
--> call
from an SHO about a patient with a Colles Fracture... Who was a
22-year-old... And a rubustly build constuction worker with a radius the
girth of a typical femur... Which just happened to be dorsally angulated
at a distal fracture site...
Both patient and SHO recovering well...
|