Curling Iron‐related Injuries Presenting to U.S. Emergency Departments

Abstract

Abstract. Objective: To describe curling iron-related injuries reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1996. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed data from NEISS, a weighted probability sample of emergency departments (EDs) developed to monitor consumer product-related injuries. The information reported includes patient demographics, injury diagnosis, body part injured, incident locale, patient disposition, and a brief narrative description. The authors reviewed the narrative in the hair care products category and abstracted records indicating the injury was caused by contact with a curling iron. Also analyzed were the design features of commonly available curling irons purchased from national discount department stores. Results: There were an estimated 105,081 hair care productrelated injuries in the five-year period, of which 82,151 (78%) involved a curling iron. Seventy percent of injuries were to females. The patient's median age was 8 years (range 1 month to 96 years). The most commonly occurring injury was thermal burns (97%; 79,912/82,151). Ninety-eight percent of the injuries occurred in the home and 99% of the patients were discharged home from the ED. In patients <4 years old, 56% of burns occurred by grabbing or touching, while in those Ն10 years the burns occurred by contact while in use. In the older group 69% of burns were of the cornea. Most curling irons use small amounts of power, yet there are no standards for temperature settings or control. The cylinder containing the heating element is mostly exposed, and many irons do not have a power switch. Conclusions: The most common injury resulting from curling irons is thermal burns. The mechanisms and patterns of injury in developmentally distinct age groups suggest that many of these injuries could be prevented by public education and the re-engineering of curling irons.

Contact Burns: Is Further Prevention Necessary?

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] During the first 5 years of the study period, the total number of contact burns admitted to this burn center decreased until 2003, when the trend reversed. The incidence of contact burns per 100 admissions initially increased during the period of 2000 to 2002, declined in 2003 and again increased during the subsequent period.…”

“…Commonly reported sources of injury include oven doors, fireplace screens, and personal care items, such as clothing irons and beauty appliances. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Because of the ubiquitous sources of contact burns, anyone can be at risk of sustaining such an injury.…”

Physiopathology of the Cornea and Physiopathology of Eye Burns

“…It is a common fact that the higher the temperature difference and the higher the thermal conductivity, the more the tissue damage. Typically, thermal eye burns, such as those caused by a single touch with a curling iron, are not too harmful, as described below [13]. But, like it happens in about 20% of all cases, if hot chemicals touch the eye, damage is more severe.…”

“…The well-known mechanism of surface contact of hot devices like curling iron [13] and particles relates to heat, thermal conductivity, and time of contact. It is a common fact that the higher the temperature difference and the higher the thermal conductivity, the more the tissue damage.…”

Thermal injuries caused by hair straightening devices in children: a significant, but preventable problem

“…Contact burns from hair curling irons are well documented in the literature (Qazi, Gerson, Christopher, Kessler, & Ida, 2001). More recently, as the fickle winds of fashion have changed, so too have the patterns of burns involving hair appliances (Duncan, Waterston, Beattie, & Stewart, 2006).…”