Ping-Pong-Ball Indentation of the Skull Without Fracture

Luckett, W. H.

doi:10.1097/00000658-191004000-00007

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An example of the interdependence of clinical and morphological components in the clinical description of skull fractures is the “ping‐pong” fracture, sometimes referred to as “celluloid,” “derby hat,” or “pond” fractures. Several researchers have used the term “ping‐pong” to describe depressions observed in the skulls of young children generally <6 months old, which may or may not be associated with fracture, and are not typically associated with intracranial injury . In other words, the term “ping‐pong” implies both pattern and clinical characteristics.…”

Section: Classification Schema Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized Descriptive Method for the Anthropological Evaluation of Pediatric Skull Fractures

Wiersema

Love

Derrick

et al. 2014

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature pertaining to pediatric skull fracture is primarily clinically based and thus motivated by the need for effective assessment of both fracture characteristics (type, frequency, location, and mechanics) and context (severity of injury, associated soft tissue damage, and prognosis). From a strictly descriptive standpoint, these schemas employ overlapping levels of detail that confound the nonclinical description of fractures in the forensic context. For this reason, application of these schemas in the forensic anthropological interpretation of skull fractures is inappropriate. We argue that forensic anthropological interpretation of skull fractures requires a standard classification system that reflects fracture morphology alone, and we suggest a three-stepped classification system that conveys increasing detail with each additional step. A retrospective application of the method to a sample of 31 children aged 1 month to 2 years demonstrated its efficacy in the description of pediatric skull fractures.

show abstract

Section: Classification Schema Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized Descriptive Method for the Anthropological Evaluation of Pediatric Skull Fractures

Wiersema

Love

Derrick

et al. 2014

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First described by Luckett in 1910, the ping-pong fracture is so named because of the three-sided pyramidal shape of the closed skull fracture, which is similar to the impact deformation of ping-pong balls. [ 14 ] It is typical of children under 1 year of age who have suffered head trauma and can occur at birth in neonates or due to other mechanisms of head trauma. It is associated with incomplete bone mineralization of the skull.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new device to treat ping-pong skull fractures: The hammer puller technique. A comparative analysis using a realistic simulation model

Neto,

Coelho,

Figueiredo

2024

Surgical Neurology International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aims to describe a new surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong skull fractures and to evaluate its efficacy in a realistic simulation model compared to the dissector elevation technique. Methods: A total of 64 fractures were obtained using 16 model units, each with four fractures (two frontal and two parietal). The hammer puller technique was applied for left-sided fractures and the dissector technique for right-sided fractures. The variables evaluated were fracture repair time, fracture volume, fracture corrected volume, and fracture correction percentage. Fractures were separated into groups according to the surgical technique used (hammer or dissector) and the bone fractured (frontal or parietal). Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi® software (version 2.3) using Student’s t-test. Results: A complete degree of fracture correction was achieved with both techniques, demonstrating a sufficient performance in the correction of the deformity. The hammer technique was shown to be faster in correcting frontal bone depressions with 20.1 ± 7.8 s compared to 31.3 ± 4.7 s for the dissector technique, P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference for parietal applications (P = 0.405). Conclusion: This study describes a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong fractures. Comparative analysis showed that both techniques were equally effective but that the hammer puller technique was more efficient than the dissector elevation technique, especially for frontal bone fractures.

show abstract

“…It occurs when the skull is still relatively soft and resilient and is able to be indented without a frank break in the bone. It was first described in 1910,2 and there have been cases reported in newborns3 after high-impact collisions4 and falls onto toys 5. There are no reports of an association between ‘ping-pong skull’ and vitamin D deficiency or rickets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%