Comparison of Evaluation Results of Different Disability Standards of Long Bone Fracture.
10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2019.02.019
- Author:
Juan GAO
1
;
Zhen Yan PEI
1
;
Xiao Ming LU
1
Author Information
1. Wuxi Zhongcheng Institute of Forensic Science, Wuxi 214000, Jiangsu Province, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
forensic medicine;
fractures, bone;
standard;
disability evaluation;
disability degree;
comparative study
- MeSH:
Disability Evaluation;
Disabled Persons;
Forensic Medicine/standards*;
Fractures, Bone;
Humans;
Knee Joint;
Wrist Joint
- From:
Journal of Forensic Medicine
2019;35(2):234-239
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective To provide reference for further perfection and revision of standards relevant to limb injury by comparing the evaluation results of different disability standards of long bone fracture. Methods Thirty cases were selected from the long bone fracture cases accepted by our institution in 2018. These cases include 5 cases of shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, ankle joints, respectively, to investigate the degree of loss of function of joints after long bone fracture. Disability evaluation was made according to Classification of the Impairment Related To Injury （hereinafter referred to as Classification）, Assessment for Body Impairment of the injured in road traffic accidents （now repealed, hereinafter referred to as original Road Standard） and Identifying Work Ability-Gradation of Disability Caused by Work-related Injuries and Occupational Diseases （hereinafter referred to as Work Standard）. The disability evaluation results of every domestic standard were compared with the joint damage rate of Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment （hereinafter referred to as GEPI）. Results The functional loss rate of joints （except ankle） was 26%-48%，and the ankle functional loss rate was 51%-64%. The mean value of GEPI joint impairment rate of the joints was 13%-22%, with the fluctuation range less than 10%. The rate of level 10 disability was 100% according to the Classification. The rate of level 10 disability was 27%, the rate of level 9 disability was 6% and 67% were not disabled according to the original Road Standard. The rate of level 10 disability was 10% according to the Work Standard and 90% had a disability above level 10 （47% were classified as level 7 disability）. Conclusion The people with limb joint dysfunction in this study had evaluation results with a smaller fluctuation range and better consistency according to the Classification and GEPI. The evaluation results according to the original Road Standard and the Work Standard has a less consistency. The Classification is more similar to GEPI and is more reasonable.
