TASER usage and neurological sequelae.
Raymond Chee-Seong Seet, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Division of Neurology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.Journal of Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.33). 07/2008; 37(2):170-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.085
- Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation - BIOL BLOOD MARROW TRANSPLANT. 01/2011; 17(6):941-941.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Controversy persists over the safety of conducted electrical weapons (CEWs), which are increasingly used by law enforcement agencies around the world. The purpose of this study was to examine injury patterns and physiologic conditions after CEW use under real life conditions. A retrospective, cohort design was used, examining all CEW uses by one police department during a 6-year period. Data were collected from use-of-force forms and medical records and included conditions surrounding the use of force, medical histories, and data from emergency department evaluations and hospital admissions. Of 1,101 individuals subjected to (Taser M26 and X26) CEW use during the study period, 92.6% were male, the average body mass index was 26.2, and the age range was 9 to 73 years. Of the 886 (80.5%) with medical records, 46.8% had a psychiatric history and 72.9% had a substance abuse history. Emergency department (ED) evaluations occurred for 295 (26.8%) incidents. Of chief complaints, 41.7% were trauma related, 26.8% were for altered mental status, and 21.7% were for psychiatric evaluation. On presentation, 17.6% had a pulse >120, 1.7% were febrile, and 30.9% were altered; 1.4% met criteria associated with "excited delirium." When laboratory workup occurred, 70.6% had positive urine toxicology and 44.8% had positive alcohol levels. Troponin I was positive for one patient. Other laboratory abnormalities were rare, although extensive evaluations were infrequently done. Admission occurred in 24.4% of ED presentations (6.5% of all subjects); of discharge diagnoses for these patients, 59.7% were psychiatric, 22.2% were for unrelated trauma, 11.1% were for restraint-related trauma, and 6.9% were for unrelated medical diagnoses. No patients died. Significant injuries related to 6 years of law enforcement CEW use in one city were rare. A large percentage of those subjected to CEW use had diagnoses of substance abuse and/or psychiatric conditions. Most admissions after CEW use were unrelated to law enforcement restraint.The Journal of trauma 05/2010; 68(5):1239-46. · 2.35 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The use of electronic control devices has expanded worldwide during the last few years, the most widely used model being the Taser. However, the scientific knowledge about electronic control devices remains limited. We reviewed the medical literature to examine the potential implications of electronic devices in terms of morbidity and mortality, and to identify and evaluate all the existing experimental human studies. A single exposure of an electronic control device on healthy individuals can be assumed to be generally safe, according to 23 prospective human experimental studies and numerous volunteer exposures. In case series, however, electronic control devices could have deleterious effects when used in the field, in particular if persons receive multiple exposures, are intoxicated, show signs of "excited delirium," or present with medical comorbidities. As the use of electronic control devices continues to increase, the controversy about its safety, notably in potentially high-risk individuals, is still a matter of debate. The complications of electronic control device exposure are numerous but often recognizable, usually resulting from barbed dart injuries or from falls. Persons exposed to electronic control devices should therefore be fully examined, and traumatic lesions must be ruled out.Annals of emergency medicine 05/2011; 58(2):178-88. · 4.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.