Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

Assessment of Nerve Injury-Induced Mechanical Hypersensitivity in Rats Using an Orofacial Operant Pain Assay
Published on: July 26, 2022
A Proposed Classification for Sugarcane Crusher Injuries of the Hand and Its Correlation with Patient Rated Outcome
Alok Sharma1, Manashree Sankhe1
1Department of Plastic Surgery, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract:
Background: Crush injuries of the hand sustained from sugarcane juice extracting machines have a unique mechanism of injury and clinical presentation. The severity of the injury can vary from simple skin lacerations to mangling of the hand. We devised a classification for these injuries based on the severity level that has helped with the management. The aim of this study is to determine whether the classification correlates with patient rated outcome score at 6 months. Methods: We prospectively studied 30 consecutive patients with a sugarcane crusher injury of the hand. The patients were classified into Class I, II, III or IV based on our classification and managed accordingly. Patient outcomes were assessed at 6 months after the injury, using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Spearman's rank correlation test was used to analyse the correlation between the different classes of hand injury and functional outcomes at 6 months following injury (measured using MHQ). Results: The study included 6 patients (20%) with Class I injury, 11 patients (36.6%) with Class II, 9 patients (30%) with Class III and 4 patients (13.4%) with Class IV injury. The mean MHQ scores at 6-month follow-up were 72.3% in Class I, 62.1% in Class II, 52.9% in Class III and 32% in Class IV injuries. An inversely proportional association between the severity grade as per the classification and MHQ scores was noted. Conclusion: Our proposed classification of sugarcane crusher injuries of the hand correlates well with the MHQ score. The use of the classification can help with management and predicting prognosis. In addition, wider use will permit comparison of outcomes between different centres. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

