{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0417036379769299, 'fraction_numerical': 0.055013309671694766, 'mean_word_length': 4.5024390243902435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Evaluations of 169 cases of decompression sickness treated in Italian hyperbaric centers 1980-1981].

An assessment was made of 169 cases of decompression sickness occurring during the period 1980-81. Nearly all (95,6%) were attributable to superficial planning and execution of the immersion and reascent to the surface marker as the result of panic. Breakdown in the diving apparatus was only responsible in 4.4% of cases. Irrispective of the intermediate decompression stages, the rate of reascent was more than 10 metres a minute in 71.6% of cases. Full recovery as a result of hyperbaric management was obtained in 78,2% type I sickness and 61.9% type II, with improvements in 17.3% and 35.1% respectively. The interval between emersion and treatment ranged from 1 to 72 hr, though the results of treatment were not significantly related to the rapidity of intervention (p greater than 0.05). Good results were dependent on the type of treatment employed, with a significantly better outcome (p less than 0.01) from U.S. Navy tables 2-2A, 3-3A, 4, 5 and 6 and the 2 + 6 recompression protocol, than from tables 5A and 6A.