(Traumatic) wounds

SNOMED Groups Translation User Group
1

Hi all,

I have a question regarding wounds in other languages.

The concept of 125643001 | open wound (disorder) is defined with traumatic event as its cause. This modelling is not fully reflected in the English FSN, as traumatic is not part of it. I can understand this from the English language perspective, as most of the sources I can find define wound as a result of physical trauma, which implies that a wound is traumatic (see: Wounds; Wound | Definition, Types, & Treatment | Britannica).

In Dutch, however, we categorize wounds as follows: “a wound is a break in the continuity of tissue, caused by trauma or a pathological disorder” (see: Wat is een wond? | Wond Expertise Centrum and Soorten wonden | Wond Expertise Centrum).

Wounds can be traumatic, think of skin tears, bullet wounds, abrasions of skin, but do not have to be. Pressure injuries are, for example, also categorized as wounds in the Netherlands. So, simply using ‘wond’ does not imply that only a traumatic event can cause this.

Now, my question is: are wounds in your language always traumatic or do you define them differently, like we do in Dutch? If so, how do you deal with this in translating? Would you add traumatic to the translation?

Thanks!

1 Like
2

In Austria we define wound as in Dutch:

Wounds can be traumatic, think of skin tears, bullet wounds, abrasions of skin, but do not have to be. Pressure injuries are, for example, also categorized as wounds in the Netherlands. So, simply using ‘wond’ does not imply that only a traumatic event can cause this.

Yours Helmut

1 Like
3

In French the word “plaie” is used to refer to pressure injuries also. Plaie de pression = lĂ©sion de pression (among other syns).

1 Like
4

It depends on the references, but generally, a wound in French is a (and this is very pompous definition by CNRTL PLAIE : DĂ©finition de PLAIE): “Continuity solution of the integuments or mucous membranes, with or without loss of substance, due to an external mechanical agent or a pathological cause.”

In SNOMED, open/closed wound has a traumatic origin, but not wound alone. I don’t know what is the exact rationale.

1 Like
5

In general, wounds can be classified as open or closed, and traumatic, non-traumatic, or surgical (intentional) and any combination of the two classification types (e.g. closed traumatic wound). SNOMED currently is somewhat inconsistent in representing these categories as there are a small number of non-traumatic open wounds (e.g. chronic ulcers) and some truly traumatic wounds (such as 110025001 |Open fracture of alveolar ridge of maxilla (disorder)|) that are not classified as traumatic open wounds.

There are many types of open wounds that are only caused by trauma and those do not have trauma in the FSN.

416462003 |Wound (disorder)| in SNOMED is currently defined only by the ASSOCIATED MORPHOLOGY of Wound, whereas both open wound and clised wound are currently defined with both a morphology and a DUE TO Traumatic event, where it is clear that not all open wounds and closed wounds are traumatic in nature.

We will create a ticket to look into a more reliable representation of the categories that may clarify the proper relationships between traumatic and non-traumatic wounds; however, for those wound types that can only be caused by traumatic events, unless there is a compelling reason to add the term traumatic to the FSN, the terms will remain as they are.

1 Like
6

Thank you for your elucidation, James! It is very helpful.

I also don’t see a reason to update the FSNs if the traumatic element is inherent to the concept.

Does anyone else have some more input regarding how you, as NRC, deal with differences in conceptuality? It does not solely have to concern wounds.