pierna golpeada con inflamación

MoonLight_lights

Senior Member
Spanish!
Hola. Estoy traduciendo (al inglés) enumeraciones de lesiones y en una parte dice:

... tobillo izquierdo inflamado, pierna golpeada con inflamación, frente cortada...

Mi intento: wounded leg with swelling (¿Habrá una palabra más exacta que "wounded" o "injured" en inglés?).

Mil gracias.
 
  • MoonLight_lights

    Senior Member
    Spanish!
    ¿En caso de que la persona se haya caído en un lugar de trabajo y se haya golpeado también se usaría "beaten" o solo si alguien la golpeó? Gracias.
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    Se me hace un poco complicado. Primero, "golpeado(a)" no es terminología médica y menos un término que se usaría para describir la apariencia. Esa frase debería ser parte de la historia (la pierna fue golpeada). No es muy preciso, pero se podría decir "bruised". Sería más fiel decir "battered".

    Estoy de acuerdo con el uso de "swelling". En México se usa "inflamación" para decir hinchazón o distensión, aunque ninguno, como tal, se cuadra con la definición de "inflamación" que yo uso en inglés (que puede incluir hinchazón pero no necesariamente).
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    Me pregunto si quedará bien decir: "bump to the leg with swelling"
    Otra vez un punto de confusión. "Had a bump to the leg..." sería correcto (recibió un golpe) pero el original parece describir la apariencia y no contar lo que pasó. Si quieres decir que tiene un bulto, como una hematoma, sería "has a bump on the leg with/and swelling."

    El problema es el original, y la ambigüedad que dejan con "golpeada". Simplemente es una manera muy imprecisa para describir la apariencia y no sabemos qué quiere decir. Creo que lo más probable es "bruised", que son moretones, dando una apariencia de haber sido golpeado.
     

    MoonLight_lights

    Senior Member
    Spanish!
    Otra vez un punto de confusión. "Had a bump to the leg..." sería correcto (recibió un golpe) pero el original parece describir la apariencia y no contar lo que pasó. Si quieres decir que tiene un bulto, como una hematoma, sería "has a bump on the leg with/and swelling."

    El problema es el original, y la ambigüedad que dejan con "golpeada". Simplemente es una manera muy imprecisa para describir la apariencia y no sabemos qué quiere decir. Creo que lo más probable es "bruised", que son moretones, dando una apariencia de haber sido golpeado.

    Clarísimo. ¡Muchas gracias, AbogadoPeter!
     

    LVRBC

    Senior Member
    English-US, standard and medical
    "Blunt force injury to leg, with inflammation" is my suggestion.
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    "Blunt force injury to leg, with inflammation" is my suggestion.
    In the most technical sense, I agree.

    However, at least to me, "blunt force injury" makes me think of a more serious injury, and "golpeada" is... more ambiguous.

    I disagree more with, "with inflammation" because, as mentioned above, when they talk about "inflamación" in Mexico they are not necessarily talking about inflammation as is referred to in the US medical lexicon. Here, when they say, "está inflamado" they mean it's swollen or, in the case of the abdomen, distended... and I'm not just referring to common usage but also physicians. It's my sense that the use of "inflamado" for "hinchado" is so ingrained (here, at least) that even physicians don't lose it in their training, and forget about the "calor" and "rubor" components.

    But we're kind of shooting in the dark given how ambiguous the original is. We, or at least I, don't really know what they're talking about.
     

    Galván

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    "Blunt force injury to leg, with inflammation due to laceration" is my suggestion. :tick:
    Inflammation is due to infection, whereas swelling is due to concussion or fluid retention.

    La inflamación debido a una cortada se debe a una herida infectada,
    Therefore inflammation here is the correct translation.
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    Inflammation is due to infection, whereas swelling is due to concussion or fluid retention.
    Where does it say "infection" in the original?

    La inflamación debido a una cortada se debe a una herida infectada
    An inflammatory response can and does arise from a laceration without infection, so I'm not sure where this statement came from. If the leg was seen very shortly after being struck and cut there could very likely be swelling from the effects of contusion or capillary bleeding without infection or significant inflammation.
    Wound Healing and Repair: Overview, Types of Wound Healing, Categories of Wound Healing

    Finally, the original does not tell us if there are the classical signs of inflammation (which include erythema) or if there is simply swelling, so unless there is information available that doesn't appear in the original that we were given, the ambiguity as to whether this is truly inflammation as would be understood in medical English remains.
     

    Galván

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    Where does it say "infection" in the original?
    El texto original habla de una inflamación frente a cortada, no tengo por qué pensar que dicha inflamación no sea una infección derivada de la cortada ya que por definición una inflamación es por infección.

    Google: Reacción que se desencadena en una parte del organismo o en los tejidos de un órgano, caracterizada por un enrojecimiento de la zona, aumento de su volumen, dolor, sensación de calor y trastornos funcionales, y que puede estar provocada por agentes patógenos o sustancias irritantes "la infección producida por bacterias suele manifestarse por una inflamación de las zonas infectadas"
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    El texto original habla de una inflamación frente a cortada, no tengo por qué pensar que dicha inflamación no sea una infección derivada de la cortada ya que por definición una inflamación es por infección.

    Claro que tienes porque pensar que dicha "inflamación" no sea una infección derivada de la cortada, ya que te lo expliqué y proporcioné una cita.

    1. La inflamación (verdadera) es una parte natural del proceso de sanación de heridas. Así es simplemente incorrecto suponer que inflamación (si es que exista en este caso) tendría que ser a causa de infección. Para que veas que no son ideas mías,

    "Wound healing is a complex and dynamic process of replacing devitalized and missing cellular structures and tissue layers. The human adult wound healing process can be divided into 3 or 4 distinct phases. Earlier authors referred to 3 phases—inflammatory, fibroblastic, and maturation, which has also been denoted as inflammatory, proliferation, and remodeling—and this is maintained by some authors. In the 4-phases concept, there are the hemostasis phase, the inflammatory phase, the proliferation phase, and the remodeling phase. In the 3-phases approach, the hemostasis phase is contained within the inflammatory phase."
    Wound Healing and Repair: Overview, Types of Wound Healing, Categories of Wound Healing

    2. No sabemos en qué punto de tiempo el original describe la pierna. Si es poco tiempo después de que ocurrieron las lesiones no hay infección y es posible, hasta probable, que tampoco haya inflamación significativa. No tenemos esos datos así sería erróneo hacer suposiciones en cuanto a la existencia de inflamación (verdadera), y si la hay, que sea por causa de infección.

    3. Debido a que el original no describe tal "inflamación" y no sabemos si hay enrojecimiento, lo cual sostendría la teoría de que realmente hay inflamación (pero no necesariamente infección), no hay manera de saber. Además, la manera de que ponen "pierna golpeada" como si fuera una descripción, demuestra que el escritor no es bien capacitado en describir lesiones.

    4. El original también se refiere a "tobillo izquierdo inflamado" sin mención de ninguna herida, que sería consistente con el uso de "inflamado" (e inflamación) como "hinchado".

    Entonces, queda la ambigüedad sobre el significado de "inflamación" en este ejemplo, pero no existe información que nos haría pensar que necesariamente hay infección.
     

    Galván

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    1. La inflamación (verdadera) es una parte natural del proceso de sanación de heridas. Así es simplemente incorrecto suponer que inflamación (si es que exista en este caso) tendría que ser a causa de infección. Para que veas que no son ideas mías,
    También sucede con moretones y como proceso de sanación de una herida. Es correcto, no es necesario que exista una infección. Estamos de acuerdo en eso.

    Pero swelling es distinto a inflammation, a eso me refiero. Swelling puede ser por gases o edema pero no por infección.
    Is there overlapping between the two? I was told not to use them interchangeably as they mean different things.
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    Pero swelling es distinto a inflammation, a eso me refiero. Swelling puede ser por gases o edema pero no por infección.
    Is there overlapping between the two? I was told not to use them interchangeably as they mean different things.
    Yes! That's the problem, exactly!

    I don't know about other countries, but here in Mexico, when you have a swollen ankle (like in the original in this thread) they say, "está inflamado". I had an internal medicine subspecialist examining my abdomen say, "estás muy inflamado" when it should have been "distendido" (lots of intestinal gases). I wasn't tender at all, no fever... no inflammation, just distension.

    So this is where I'm seeing the ambiguity in the original. "Golpeada" is so vague and nondescriptive, and then we have the ankle "inflamada" (more consistent with swelling than inflammation)... and, as you say, in English they mean different things, but at least where I live, "swollen" is referred to as "inflamado" and not "hinchado," even by physicians.

    I'm not defending one meaning or the other, but explaining why I find this original very ambiguous.
     

    LVRBC

    Senior Member
    English-US, standard and medical
    Post-traumatic swelling is inflammation. I am grateful to Lic.Peter since he pointed out that inflammation is certainly not always due to infection, so I did not have to make this point. Swelling can occur in the absence of inflammation in the setting of pedal edema, for instance, where fluid collects in the lower extremities due to circulatory problems. That's not the case here. The OP`s original text said "con inflamación" and there is no obvious reason to translate this as swelling rather than inflammation. I see no mention of a laceration until the forehead is mentioned, either. There's no reason why "blunt force injury" or even "blunt force trauma" should make anyone think of a more major injury than pierna golpeada, except that it sounds like it was written by an ER doctor, which I was until retirement. Presumably someone is writing up these injuries for medical reasons, and will go on to provide details.

    "Had a bump" is trivializing the injury in the description, which may or may not be appropriate; we'd have to see the injury first. "Beaten," "pounded," and "bump" are not acceptable medical descriptions unless they refer to something specific that is known to have occurred.

    Swelling is a word with a range of meanings. Certainly not all swelling is due to inflammation, but swelling is often part of the inflammatory process, so there is definitely overlap. It's better to be specific, unless one is doing oral interpretation when one has to follow the patient's wording. (I'm surprised to hear that Peter's internist said "inflamado" about his abdomen. Here in Califas my patients used to say "inflado" for the same situation.)
    We don't know where the OP's original text came from. I wish Moonlight would let us know the country and the context.
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    The OP`s original text said "con inflamación" and there is no obvious reason to translate this as swelling rather than inflammation.
    Yes, but it also says "tobillo izquierdo inflamado," which just adds, in my mind, to the ambiguity, as that's what they say here for a swollen ankle.

    There's no reason why "blunt force injury" or even "blunt force trauma" should make anyone think of a more major injury than pierna golpeada
    In general, I agree. Yet I've never seen a simple contusion or minor hematoma referred to as "blunt force trauma" or a puncture wound to the finger as "penetrating trauma," although technically they are. I'm sure that you'll agree that those phrases are most commonly used in context of more significant injuries.

    Presumably someone is writing up these injuries for medical reasons, and will go on to provide details.
    I guess, although as I've mentioned, use of the term "golpeada" as a physical descriptor doesn't give me much confidence in the medical training of the writer.

    One thing that I've noticed here: the GPs (médicos generales) and family medicine docs vary in terms of their competence and knowledge but in my experience they are quite adept in using medical terminology and descriptors. I wouldn't think that the original text was even written by a GP working in a pharmacy here, which is why I think we are struggling with the ambiguities.
     

    AbogadoPeter

    Senior Member
    English - USA (medical & legal)
    Post-traumatic swelling is inflammation.
    One more point. I differ slightly. As you know, swelling immediately after trauma may occur in what the article, above, refers to as the hemostasis phase and prior to a significant inflammatory response, particularly in response to bleeding and physical trauma to cells and vessels.

    I see these processes and mechanisms as lying on a continuum, with a lot of overlap.
     

    ChemaSaltasebes

    Senior Member
    Castellano (España)
    Definitely this thread is much more enlightening and interesting, thanks to both LVRBC and Peter and also Galván, than the original actually is;
    enumeraciones de lesiones y en una parte dice:

    ... tobillo izquierdo inflamado, pierna golpeada con inflamación, frente cortada...
    Dicho original parece extracto de un parte de lesiones donde se describe de manera inespecífica (y poco profesional; ¿pierna golpeada?) lo observado a la exploración de un paciente con un trauma que podríamos suponer agudo si bien no necesariamente tiene por qué ser así. Con todas mis dudas así en relación a un original muy poco claro desde un punto de vista médico;

    ... swollen left ankle, (lower?) leg contusion [bruising?] with local swelling, forehead cut...

    ... left ankle inflammation; blunt trauma to leg, with inflammation; forehead cut...

    Creo que el problema de estas opciones -y en particular de la segunda (LVRBC)- es que resultan mucho más profesionales que el original... ;)
     
    Last edited:

    LVRBC

    Senior Member
    English-US, standard and medical
    I like "contusion." We've had an amicable discussion among colleagues and I only hope the OP is as interested as we are. Saludos, Peter and Chema and Galván; I enjoy your (online)company
     
    Top