High-Pressure Injection Injuries of the Hand: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis at a Single Academic Center.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of high-pressure injection injuries of the hand is low. Although the occurrence is rare, the precarious progression of the injury exacts prompt surgical evaluation in order to avoid complications and amputation. The current study was devised in order to make comparisons to the current data, in addition to supplementing the literature with observations regarding clinical course and management.

METHODS: A multisurgeon, retrospective chart review from a single institution was performed. Inclusion criteria included cases involving a high-pressure injection injury to the hand that underwent surgical management. Patient demographics, injury details, and hospital course were all reviewed and recorded.

RESULTS: This retrospective review identified 20 cases meeting criteria, all of which involved males. The average age at time of injury was 39.7 years (range, 21-71 years). The incidence of injection injuries over a 10-year time period was 2.1 cases per year. The nondominant hand was injured in 11 cases (63%). The most common site of injury was the index finger with 11 recorded incidents (55%). Other reported locations included the metacarpal (40%) and small finger (5%). Occupational data included 10 construction workers, 5 painters, and 2 cleaning crew members, and 3 had nonmanual occupations. Paint was the most commonly injected substance with 17 reported cases (85%). On average, the delay until surgery was observed to be 21.9 hours (n = 16). Only 1 patient underwent surgery at 6 hours after surgery. The average number of procedures performed was 1.8 (range, 1-4). Hospitalization duration was on average 3.9 days (range, 1-9 days), and the average follow-up length was 69 days (range, 7-112 days). There were no identified cases that necessitated amputation.

CONCLUSIONS: This form of injury most commonly affects male, middle-aged laborers. Our study found very low amputation rates when compared with the current literature, despite observing longer delays to surgery according to current recommendations. Limited comparisons can be made from data regarding clinical course and management because of the small sample size of the current study and the limited published data. This indicates a need for further exploration and collection of data involving parameters such as clinical course and management.