ABSTRACT
Objectives:
to evaluate the profile of emergency care of trauma patients at Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie (HUEM) during the period of restrictive measures due to COVID-19 (03/13/2021 to 04/05/2021), and compare to the same period at the beginning of the pandemic, in 2020, and before the pandemic, in 2019.
Methods:
quantitative and descriptive observational cross-sectional study. The final sample of 8,338 was analyzed in terms of date, gender, age and service responsible for providing care; the traumas were analyzed according to the etiology and conduct of the treatment and outcome.
Results:
there was a percentage increase in non-traumatic emergency care during the pandemic, and the medical clinic held a third of admissions in 2021. There was a reduction in trauma care, since in 2019 traumas were responsible for 44.9% of admissions and by 23.5% in 2021. There was a significant difference in the proportion between the attendance of men and women, and the percentage of men victims of trauma was higher than in the pre-pandemic periods. There was a reduction in absolute numbers, with statistical significance, in traffic accidents, falls from the same level, burns, general blunt trauma and sports and leisure trauma. The proportion of conservative treatments with hospital discharge reduced. There was a significant difference in the number of deaths, decreasing in 2020 but increasing in 2021.
Conclusion:
there was a reduction in trauma care during the pandemic, but the profile remained the adult male victim of a traffic accident. More severe traumas were admitted, resulting in an increase in surgical treatment, hospitalizations and deaths.
Keywords: Emergencies, COVID-19, Pandemics, Wounds and Injuries, Trauma Centers
RESUMO
Objetivo:
avaliar o perfil de atendimento emergencial dos pacientes vítimas de trauma do Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie (HUEM) durante o período de medidas restritivas devido à COVID-19 (13/03/2021 a 05/04/2021) e comparar ao mesmo período no início da pandemia, em 2020, e antes da pandemia, em 2019.
Métodos:
estudo transversal observacional quantitativo e descritivo. A amostra final de 8.338 foi analisada quanto a data, sexo, idade e serviço responsável pelo atendimento; os traumas foram analisados conforme a etiologia e a conduta do tratamento e desfecho.
Resultados:
houve aumento percentual no atendimento a urgências não traumáticas durante a pandemia, e a clínica médica deteve um terço das admissões em 2021. Ocorreu redução nos atendimentos por trauma, visto que em 2019 os traumas foram responsáveis por 44,9% das admissões e por 23,5% em 2021. Houve diferença significativa na proporção entre os atendimentos de homens e mulheres, sendo que o percentual de homens vítimas de traumas foi maior do que os períodos pré pandêmicos. Observou-se redução em números absolutos, com significância estatística, nos eventos de trânsito, queda de mesmo nível, queimaduras, traumas contusos gerais e traumas esportivos e de lazer. A proporção de tratamentos conservadores com alta hospitalar reduziu. Houve diferença significativa na quantidade de óbitos, reduzindo em 2020, mas aumentando em 2021.
Conclusão:
houve redução do atendimento no trauma durante a pandemia, mas o perfil permaneceu sendo o homem adulto vítima de eventos de trânsito. Traumas de maior gravidade foram admitidos, resultando no aumento de tratamento cirúrgico, internamentos e óbitos
Palavras-chave: Emergências, COVID-19, Pandemias, Ferimentos e Lesões, Centros de Traumatologia
INTRODUCTION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an acute respiratory infection caused by SARS-CoV-2, was discovered in December 2019 in China and was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization 1 - 3 . According to the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Brazil faced the biggest health and hospital collapse in its history, with overcrowding of the health system. Due to the need to reduce the circulation of the virus, Curitiba, in the State of Paraná, adopted restrictive measures for circulation, in accordance with Decree No. 565, of 03/13/2021. Thus, it declared a public health emergency on 03/16/2020, extending until 04/05/20214.
Social restrictions seem to have repercussions on several areas of health, including trauma. International studies sought to understand the epidemiology of traumatic injuries in times of social distancing rules and identified a change in the care profile. A reduction of 31-62% in the total number of admissions was observed in periods of social restriction compared with similar periods before the pandemic. In addition, there was an increase in trauma due to high level falls (70% compared with the previous year), representing the predominant type of trauma found during the lockdown period 5 - 16 .
Despite the reduction in the number of patients admitted due to trauma to emergency departments, an upward trend was observed in the proportion of severe traumas 8 , 11 - 13 . Rajput et al. observed that, in England, there were more high-risk incidents and a higher mortality rate compared with the same period in 2019 (7.4%-6.2%) 12 . In addition, there was an increase in patients who required emergency surgery, while the number of patients who did not need intervention reduced in proportion during lockdown. The hypothesis would be that the apprehension of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 postponed care, resulting in therapeutic delay and more aggressive interventions 12 - 14 .
The profile of trauma victims in Brazil before the pandemic was of men of reproductive age victims of traffic events 17 - 19 . The main trauma mechanisms were due to car accidents (50.3%), falls (22.5%), and interpersonal violence (21.2%) 17 . However, in view of the scarcity of national studies, the profile during the pandemic is not well understood. Ribeiro-Junior et al. sought to understand the changes in trauma and violence during the initial stages of the pandemic in São Paulo. They noted a reduction in injuries from traffic events and a drop in the number of injuries from firearms and stab weapons. Data related to sexual violence and interpersonal violence also declined. However, these numbers may be relative, due to the tendency of underreporting of cases of domestic violence, since the search for help in these cases is usually impaired 20 .
The objective of this study was to evaluate the emergency care profile of trauma victims at the Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie - a tertiary health service in Curitiba - Paraná, during the period of more restrictive measures in the city - 03/13/2021 to 05/05 04/2021 - and to compare it to the same period at the beginning of the pandemic, in 2020, and, also before the pandemic, in 2019.
METHODS
This is a quantitative, descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study, with non-probabilistic sampling, which obtained information through electronic medical records from the Hospital Universitário Evangélico Mackenzie (HUEM), a Type 3 trauma center in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
In view of the different people movement patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic, information was collected from all patients who were treated in the HUEM emergency sector in three similar periods of consecutive years: 03/13 to 05/04, 2019 (before the pandemic), 03/13 to 05/04, 2020 (in the beginning of the pandemic), and 03/13 to 05/04, 2021 (during the pandemic’s most restrictive measures).
We collected data on date, sex, age, and service responsible for providing care. The sample was 11,436, and of these, 3,098 were excluded because they were pediatric appointments.
Regarding sex, the sample was divided between females and males.
As for the service responsible for the care, the sample was divided into 8 groups: internal medicine, gynecology and obstetrics, non-trauma general surgery, non-trauma ophthalmology, non-trauma orthopedics, trauma general surgery, trauma ophthalmology, and trauma orthopedics. To analyze traumatic emergencies, the last three groups were joined and configured the trauma group. This group was further analyzed, firstly regarding the main etiology: traffic events, fall from the same level (FSL), fall from another level (FAL), burn, blunt trauma, penetrating trauma, and others; and regarding the circumstance of occurrence: sports and leisure trauma, violence, and unspecified. Traffic events and interpersonal violence were classified, where applicable, the former into run over and events by motor vehicles, bicycles, or motorcycles, and the latter into self-harm, assault, domestic violence, and sexual violence. We also evaluated the trauma group regarding conduct and treatment outcome: conservative discharge, conservative hospitalization, surgery, or death.
If the patient had more than one etiology and/or was approached by more than one service, the main etiology and/or the service that carried out the main procedures was considered. Separate visits by the same patient were considered separate episodes.
We analyzed the collected data using descriptive statistics with tables. The research was developed respecting the privacy of the participants. Personal data that could identify the patient (name, address, education level, and documentation) were not collected. The study was approved by the Ethics in Research Committee of the institution (Opinion No. 4803371).
To carry out the statistical analysis, we tabulated the information from the medical records in an Excel spreadsheet for the descriptive analysis and performed the chi-square and Fischer tests using the SPSS Statistics v.28.0 software.
RESULTS
We analyzed data from 8,338 emergency medical records during the three periods, 2,757 in 2019, 2,449 in 2020, and 3,132 in 2021. Non-traumatic emergency room visits increased in percentage during the pandemic, internal medicine accounting for almost a third of all admissions in 2021. On the other hand, there was a progressive reduction in trauma visits, which were responsible for 44.9% of admissions in 2019 (n=1237), 43.1% in the initial period of the pandemic (n=1055), and, though displaying the highest absolute number of attendances, represented only 23.5% in 2021 (n=737) (Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1. Attendances by specialty according to years.
| Service | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| IM | 557 | 20.2% | 511 | 20.9% | 985 | 31.4% | |
| GO | 257 | 9.3% | 243 | 9.9% | 592 | 18.9% | |
| Non-trauma GS | 465 | 16.9% | 319 | 13.0% | 473 | 15.1% | |
| Non-trauma Ophthalm | 128 | 4.6% | 216 | 8.8% | 196 | 6.2% | |
| Non-trauma Ortho | 113 | 4.1% | 106 | 4.3% | 149 | 4.7% | |
| Trauma GS | 767 | 27.8% | 700 | 28.6% | 411 | 13.1% | |
| Trauma Ophthalmic | 71 | 2.6% | 63 | 2.6% | 62 | 2.0% | |
| Trauma Ortho | 399 | 14.5% | 291 | 11.9% | 264 | 8.4% | |
| TOTAL | 2757 | 100% | 2449 | 100% | 3132 | 100% | |
IM: internal medicine; GO: gynecology and obstetrics; GS: general surgery; Ophthalm: ophthalmology; Ortho: orthopedics. Source: authors.
Table 2. Comparison of periods according to age.
| Year | Age (years) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Average | Median | Minimum | Maximum | Standard deviation | |
| 2019 | 1237 | 41,7 | 38 | 18 | 96 | 17,9 |
| 2020 | 1055 | 41,8 | 38 | 18 | 95 | 18,2 |
| 2021 | 737 | 40,8 | 37 | 18 | 90 | 16,8 |
One-way ANOVA, p<0.05. Source: authors.
For the next analyses, we considered only cases of traumatic emergencies.
Regarding age, the median was 38 years old in the first two periods and 37 in 2021 (p=0.412) (Table 2).
In the analysis of the proportion between sexes, men constituted the largest portion of the sample during the years 2019, 2020, and 2021 - 61%, 66.4%, and 63.6%, respectively. When comparing the initial stage of the pandemic with the same period in the previous year, there was a significant difference in the proportion between men and women attended (p=0.027), and the percentage of male trauma victims was even higher.
Regarding trauma etiologies and circumstances, we observed a tendency towards reduction in absolute numbers, being significant (p<0.001) for traffic events, FSL, burns, general blunt traumas and sports and leisure traumas. Although decreasing in number, traffic events, general blunt trauma, and FSL were the most frequent etiologies in all periods, traffic events remaining in first place (Table 3).
Tabela 3. Categorical variables according to years.
| Variable | Classification | Year | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | p | ||
| Trauma etiology | Traffic events | 309 | 24.9% | 275 | 26.1% | 167 | 22.6% | <0.001 |
| FSL | 255 | 20.6% | 201 | 19.0% | 132 | 17.9% | <0.001 | |
| FAL | 86 | 6.9% | 84 | 7.9% | 79 | 10.7% | 0.855 | |
| Burn | 185 | 14.9% | 150 | 14.2% | 93 | 12.6% | <0.001 | |
| General blunt trauma | 274 | 22.2% | 198 | 18.7% | 162 | 22.0% | <0.001 | |
| Penetrating trauma | 74 | 5.9% | 98 | 9.3% | 77 | 10.4% | 0.127 | |
| Others | 54 | 4.4% | 49 | 4.7% | 27 | 3.7% | 0.008 | |
| Trauma circumstance | Sports and leisure Trauma | 26 | 2.1% | 13 | 1.2% | 6 | 0.8% | 0.001 |
| Violence | 92 | 7.4% | 98 | 9.3% | 87 | 11.8% | 0.719 | |
| Not specified | 1119 | 90.5% | 944 | 89.5% | 644 | 87.4% | <0.001 | |
| Type of traffic event | Run over | 34 | 11.2% | 24 | 8.8% | 13 | 7.9% | 0.009 |
| Automobile | 69 | 22.7% | 40 | 14.7% | 25 | 15.2% | <0.001 | |
| Bicycle | 31 | 10.2% | 29 | 10.7% | 31 | 18.9% | 0.957 | |
| Motorcycle | 170 | 55.9% | 179 | 65.8% | 95 | 57.9% | <0.001 | |
| Type of violence | Self-harm | 6 | 6.5% | 7 | 7.2% | 8 | 9.2% | 0.866 |
| Assault | 79 | 85.9% | 80 | 82.5% | 69 | 79.3% | 0.6146 | |
| Domestic violence | 4 | 4.3% | 9 | 9.3% | 7 | 8.0% | 0.386 | |
| Sexual violence | 3 | 3.3% | 1 | 1.0% | 3 | 3.4% | 0.564 | |
Chi-square test, p<0.05. Source: authors.
As for the types of traffic events, only those involving bicycles did not display a significant difference. Traffic events involving automobiles decreased in the two pandemic years (n=69 vs. n=40 vs. n=25). On the other hand, motorcycle events increased in 2020 and decreased in 2021. Finally, the proportion of injuries involving bicycles increased 8.7% from 2019 to 2021. Sports and leisure injuries decreased from 2.1% to 0.8 % of total admissions in the years 2019 and 2021, respectively (Table 3).
Table 4 distinguishes the variables regarding the sex of the victim over the years. There was a significant increase in penetrating trauma among women in all periods (n=7 vs. n=14 vs. n=26) (p=0.002). With regard to self-harm, before the pandemic, most cases were female, representing 66.7%. In 2020, 85.7% were men, though with no statistically significant difference (Table 4).
Table 4. Categorical variables according to years and sex.
| Sex (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Classification | Total (n) | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | |||
| Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | |||
| Trauma etiology | Traffic Event | 309 | 27.2 | 72.8 | 20.7 | 79.3 | 24 | 76 |
| FSL | 255 | 58.4 | 41.6 | 55.2 | 44.8 | 57.6 | 42.4 | |
| FAL | 86 | 41.9 | 58.1 | 36.9 | 63.1 | 38 | 62 | |
| Burn | 185 | 53.3 | 46.5 | 45.3 | 54.7 | 34.4 | 65.6 | |
| General blunt trauma | 274 | 33.9 | 66.1 | 28.3 | 71.7 | 34 | 66 | |
| Penetrating trauma | 74 | 9.5 | 90.5 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 33.8 | 66.2 | |
| Others | 54 | 25.9 | 74.1 | 34.7 | 65.3 | 40.7 | 59.3 | |
| Trauma circumstance | Sports and leisure trauma | 26 | 7.7 | 92.3 | 7.7 | 92.3 | 33.3 | 66.7 |
| Violence | 92 | 25 | 75 | 21.4 | 78.6 | 32.2 | 67.8 | |
| Not specified | 119 | 40.6 | 59.4 | 35.1 | 64.9 | 37.7 | 62.3 | |
| Traffic event type | Run over | 34 | 47.1 | 52.9 | 41.7 | 58.3 | 23.1 | 76.9 |
| Automobile | 69 | 47.8 | 52.2 | 42.5 | 57.5 | 44 | 56 | |
| Bicycle | 31 | 32.3 | 67.7 | 6.9 | 93.1 | 29 | 71 | |
| Motorcycle | 170 | 14.1 | 85.9 | 15.6 | 84.4 | 17.9 | 82.1 | |
| Type of violence | Self-harm | 6 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 50 | 50 |
| Assault | 79 | 15.2 | 84.8 | 12.5 | 87.5 | 23.2 | 76.8 | |
| Domestic violence | 4 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 71.4 | 28.6 | |
| Sexual violence | 3 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | |
| Surgical | 151 | 39.7 | 60.3 | 33.6 | 66.4 | 27.5 | 72.5 | |
| Conduct and outcome | Conservative - discharge | 970 | 38.5 | 61.5 | 35 | 65 | 39.1 | 60.9 |
| Conservative - admission | 39 | 30.5 | 69.2 | 21.7 | 78.3 | 38.1 | 61.9 | |
| Death | 9 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 25 | 75 | 20 | 80 | |
Fisher’s exact test or Chi-square test, p<0.05. Source: authors.
There was a significant difference in the number of deaths (p=0.038), reducing in the first moment of the pandemic, but increasing significantly in 2021. The proportion of conservative treatments with hospital discharge decreased, while hospitalizations and surgeries increased (Table 5).
Table 5. Treatment and outcome.
| 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | p | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conduct and outcome | Surgical | 151 | 12.9% | 146 | 14.0% | 153 | 21.4% | 0.973 |
| Conservative - discharge | 970 | 83.0% | 824 | 79.0% | 506 | 70.7% | <0.001 | |
| Conservative - admission | 39 | 3.3% | 69 | 6.6% | 42 | 5.9% | 0.004 | |
| Death | 9 | 0.8% | 4 | 0.4% | 15 | 2.1% | 0.038 | |
Chi-square test, p<0.05. Source: Copyright.
DISCUSSION
The present study sought to analyze the profile of trauma care at a tertiary university hospital during the pandemic.
Regarding the total number of admissions, the year 2021 had the highest one, though displaying the lowest number of traumas. When considering that, in 2021, social distancing measures were more restrictive, the high number of emergency room visits (n=3,132) was surprising. However, we observed a significant increase in internal medicine cases, which may be related to the advance of the pandemic and greater circulation of the virus. The number of traumas decreased by 40.4% between 2019 and the period of greatest social restriction, corroborating Fahy et al., who described a reduction of 40.0% 7 . This considerable reduction may be related to the reallocation of beds to accommodate patients with COVID-19.
Most of the analyzed studies found an increase in the median age of trauma victims 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 , which does not corroborate this study, in which there was no significant difference in the median between years.
Regarding the proportion of attendance between men and women, the data were conflicting. As the pandemic wore on, even more men were victims of trauma, while Fahy et al. found an increase in the proportion of women 7 . Other studies did not show changes in this proportion 6 , 14 , 21 .
A study carried out in Curitiba, in 2012, found that traffic events represented the most prevalent trauma etiology 17 . This prevalence did not change during the pandemic, although the absolute number has decreased, which can be explained by the lower use of cars due to circulation restrictions, since a good part of the workers and educational institutions were paralyzed or in remote activities. It is noteworthy that several international studies did not show traffic events as the main cause of attendance at trauma centers 5 - 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 - 15 , 21 .
With regard to motorcycle events, there was an increase of 9.9% in the first moment of the pandemic, possibly due to the greater demand for home deliveries. In addition, there was a percentage increase in bicycle events, from 10.2% in 2019 to 18.9% in 2021. A possible explanation would be the use of bicycles, both as a mode of home delivery and for leisure and sport. According to data from the Brazilian Association of the Bicycle Sector, purchases of this means of transport increased by 50.0% during the pandemic 22 .
As found by Dolci et al., Hampton et al., and Van Aert et al., sports and leisure trauma suffered a significant decrease (p<0.001). In this study, the reduction was 76.9% 6 .
As for penetrating trauma, the proportion between sexes changed drastically between the first and last analyzed periods, revealing an increase of 24.3% in women. Despite this, we found no association between this finding and cases of domestic violence, which did not suffer a significant difference (p=0.311).
A Brazilian study conducted in the early stages of the pandemic, using official violence data, found a reduction in interpersonal and sexual violence in São Paulo 20 . We found a decrease only in assaults, which went from 79 cases in 2019 to 62 in 2021. On the other hand, self-injury increased mainly among males, by 200.0% in 2020. Our study corroborates the finding of Nia et al., who showed a 300.0% increase in the suicide rate among men during the pandemic 11 . The increase in this form of violence appears to be associated with higher rates of social isolation, which indicate a greater risk for the occurrence of self-harm, since they are linked to feelings of loneliness, resulting in anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts 23 . In addition, cases of unemployment and economic losses were also part of the context of the pandemic and, associated with all the uncertainty of a completely new moment, may be related to the increase in self-harm. Even with this plausible explanation, it is possible that this significant percentage increase was due to the low number of consultations for this trauma, resulting in a greater sensitivity to variations.
As found in studies carried out in Austria and the United States, there was a trend towards more severe trauma, as surgical treatments, hospitalizations, and deaths increased 8 , 11 . Possibly, with the reallocation of beds, the hospital admitted the most serious traumas as a priority, while the milder cases were referred to other services. With the pandemic, centers specializing in elective surgeries were adapted to receive trauma victims, due to the lower availability of beds in hospitals and the cancellation of elective surgeries. Motta et al. demonstrated the conversion of a Brazilian institute specializing in high-complexity, elective orthopedic procedures into a trauma care unit during the pandemic period 24 .
CONCLUSION
Through the present study, we can conclude that the pandemic resulted in a reduction in trauma care, but the predominant profile remained the adult male victim of traffic events. In addition, more severe traumas were admitted, resulting in an increase in surgical treatments, hospitalizations, and deaths.
Therefore, despite the need to reallocate beds and concentrate forces in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, trauma remains a public health problem, which requires the maintenance of an adequate hospital structure.
Footnotes
Funding source: none.
REFERENCES
- 1.Organização Mundial de Saúde . Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline [internet] 2021. https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nBkO1E [Google Scholar]
- 2.Organização Mundial de Saúde . WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2021. https://covid19.who.int [Google Scholar]
- 3.Organização Mundial de Saúde . WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part [internet] 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz . Observatório Covid-19 aponta maior colapso sanitário e hospitalar da história do Brasil [internet] 2021. https://portal.fiocruz.br/noticia/observatorio-covid-19-aponta-maior-colapso-sanitario-e-hospitalar-da-historia-do-brasil [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chiba H, Lewis M, Benjamin ER, Jakob DA, Liasidis P, Wong MD, et al. "Safer at home": The effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on epidemiology, resource utilization, and outcomes at a large urban trauma center. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021;90(4):708–713. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dolci A, Marongiu G, Leinardi L, Lombardo M, Dessi G, Capone A. The Epidemiology of Fractures and Muskulo-Skeletal Traumas During COVID-19 Lockdown A Detailed Survey of 17.591 Patients in a Wide Italian Metropolitan Area. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:2151459320972673–2151459320972673. doi: 10.1177/2151459320972673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Fahy S, Moore J, Kelly M, Flannery O, Kenny P. Analysing the variation in volume and nature of trauma presentations during COVID-19 lockdown in Ireland. Bone Jt Open. 2020;1(6):261–266. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.16.BJO-2020-0040.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ghafil C, Matsushima K, Henry R, Inaba K. Trends in Trauma Admissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Los Angeles County, California. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e211320. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hampton M, Clark M, Baxter I, Stevens R, Flatt E, Murray J. The effects of a UK lockdown on orthopaedic trauma admissions and surgical cases. Bone Jt Open. 2020;1(5):137–143. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.15.BJO-2020-0028.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jacob S, Thakur DMI, Moghadam A, Oh T, Hsu J. Impact of societal restrictions and lockdown on trauma admissions during the COVID -19 pandemic a single-centre cross-sectional observational study. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(11):2227–2231. doi: 10.1111/ans.16307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nia A, Popp D, Diendorfer C, Apprich S, Munteanu A, Hajdu S. Impact of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on number of patients and patterns of injuries at a level I trauma center. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2021;133(7-8):336–343. doi: 10.1007/s00508-021-01824-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rajput K, Sud A, Rees M, Rutka O. Epidemiology of trauma presentations to a major trauma centre in the North West of England during the COVID-19 level 4 lockdown. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;47(3):631–636. doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01507-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Riuttanen A, Ponkilainen V, Kuitunen I, Reito A, Sirola J, Mattila VM. Severely injured patients do not disappear in a pandemic Incidence and characteristics of severe injuries during COVID-19 lockdown in Finland. Acta Orthop. 2021;92(3):249–253. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1881241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Aert G, Laan L, Winter L, Berende C, Groot H, Hensbroek P. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first lockdown in the Netherlands on the number of trauma-related admissions, trauma severity and treatment the results of a retrospective cohort study in a level 2 trauma centre. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e045015. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Venter A, Lewis CM, Saffy P, Chadinha LP. Locked down Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on trauma presentations to the emergency department. S Afr Med J. 2020;111(1):52–56. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i1.15289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Waseem S, Nayar SK, Hull P, Carrothers A, Rawal J, Chou D. The global burden of trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic A scoping review. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021;12(1):200–207. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.11.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Credo P, Felix J. Perfil dos pacientes atendidos em um hospital de referência ao trauma em Curitiba: implicações para a enfermagem. Cogitare Enfermagem. 2012;17(1) doi: 10.5380/ce.v17i1.26385. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Silva L, Ferreira A, Paulino R, Guedes G, da Cunha M, Peixoto V. Análise retrospectiva da prevalência e do perfil epidemiológico dos pacientes vítimas de trauma em um hospital secundário. Ver Med. 2017;96(4):245–253. doi: 10.11606/issn.1679-9836.v96i4p245-253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Praça W, Matos M, Magro M, Hermann P. Perfil epidemiológico e clínico de vítimas de trauma em um hospital do distrito federal. Rev Pre Infec e Saúde. 2017;3(1):1–7. doi: 10.26694/repis.v3i0.6219. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ribeiro-junior M, Néder P, Augusto S, Elias Y, Otto K, Santo-rosa M. Current state of trauma and violence in São Paulo - Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2021;48:e20202875. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20202875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ilhan B, Berikol G, Aydin H, Erduhan M, Dogan H. COVID-19 outbreak impact on emergency trauma visits and trauma surgery in a level 3 trauma center. Ir J Med Sci. 2022;191(5):2319–2324. doi: 10.1007/s11845-021-02793-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Aliança Bike . Impactos da crise do coronavírus para as lojas de bicicletas. Aliança Bike - Associação Brasileira do Setor de Bicicletas [internet] 2020. https://aliancabike.org.br/crise-nas-lojas-covid-19 [Google Scholar]
- 23.Holmes E, Connor R, Perry V, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arsenualt L. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):547–560. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Motta G, Leal A, Amaral M, Maia P, Duarte M, Bähr G. Impacto das estratégias adotadas para enfrentar a pandemia de COVID-19 em um Instituto Brasileiro de referência em cirurgia de alta complexidade em Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Rev Bras Ortop. 2021;56(2):161–167. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1728703. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Curitiba . Decreto nº 565, de 12 de março de 2021. Dispõe sobre medidas restritivas a atividades e serviços para o enfrentamento da Emergência em Saúde Pública, de acordo com o quadro epidêmico do novo Coronavírus (COVID-19) e a situação de Risco Alto de Alerta - Bandeira Vermelha, conforme Protocolo de Responsabilidade Sanitária e Social de Curitiba. Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba; 2021. https://mid.curitiba.pr.gov.br/2021/00311717.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 26.Curitiba . Decreto nº 630, de 26 de março de 2021. Prorroga o prazo previsto no artigo 14 do Decreto Municipal n.º 600, de 19 de março de 2021 e dá outras providências. Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba; 2021. https://mid.curitiba.pr.gov.br/2021/00312277.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 27.Secretaria Municipal de Saúde de Curitiba . Centro de Epidemiologia/Monitoramento COVID-19. Painel COVID-19 Curitiba [internet] 2021. https://coronavirus.curitiba.pr.gov.br/painelcovid [Google Scholar]
- 28.Curitiba . Decreto nº 421, de 16 de março de 2020. Declara Situação de Emergência em Saúde Pública, em decorrência da infecção humana pelo novo Coronavírus (COVID 19) Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba; 2020. https://mid.curitiba.pr.gov.br/2020/00301049.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 29.Curitiba . Decreto - Aviso de publicação nº 155, de março de 2021. Torna Público DECRETO n.º 600/2021 - Dispõe sobre medidas restritivas a atividades e serviços para o enfrentamento da Emergência em Saúde Pública, de acordo com o quadro epidêmico do novo Coronavírus (COVID-19) e a situação de Risco Alto de Alerta - Bandeira Vermelha, conforme Protocolo de Responsabilidade Sanitária e Social de Curitiba. Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba; 2021. https://mid.curitiba.pr.gov.br/2021/00311963.pdf [Google Scholar]