DOCSLIB.ORG

Paediatric Injury Scoring and Trauma Registry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paediatric Injury Scoring and Trauma Registry CHAPTER 26 Paediatric Injury Scoring and Trauma Registry Francis A. Abantanga Erin A. Teeple Benedict C. Nwomeh Introduction Table 26.1: The Abbreviated Injury Scale. Injury scoring systems are designed to accurately assess injury severity, Type of injury AIS score appropriately triage the injured, and develop and refine trauma patient care.1 Trauma scores quantify the severity and extent of injury, aid with Minor 1 the prediction of survival and subsequent morbidity,2 and allow health Moderate 2 Severe, but not life-threatening 3 care providers to communicate in common terms. One disadvantage of Severe, life-threatening, survival probable 4 injury scoring systems is that patient information is reduced to a simple Critical, survival uncertain 5 score, and important details may be lost. To accurately estimate patient Not survivable/virtually unsurvivable 6 outcome, it is necessary to precisely assess the patient’s anatomic and physiologic injury, as well as any preexisting medical conditions that can impair the patient’s ability to respond to the stress of the injuries sustained. Injury Severity Score Understanding and appropriate use of trauma scoring systems, along The ISS, like the AIS, is an anatomic scoring system that provides an with the use of specific treatment guidelines, can significantly contribute overall score for patients with multiple injuries.8 Each injury must be to improvement in the prognosis of injured children. The majority of the assigned an AIS score, allocated to one of six body regions: head and injury scoring systems used in children today are extrapolations of the neck, face, thorax, abdomen and visceral pelvis, extremities and bony same systems used in adults but with some modifications.3 pelvis, and external structures.6 Injuries in each region are given an AIS Injury scoring systems are divided into anatomic, physiologic, and score, and the highest AIS score in each body region is used. To generate combined categories.2,3 Some of the scoring systems are discussed in the ISS, square the AIS score of each of the three most severely injured further detail within the following sections, with demonstrations of their body regions (those with the highest AIS scores, including only one from use where possible. each body region) and add the squares together.6,8 The ISS has a good predictive power and correlates well with mortality, morbidity, length of Anatomic Injury Scoring Systems hospital stay, and other measures of severity. The minimum score is 1 Anatomic injury scoring systems clearly characterise the degree of anatom- 2 and the maximum possible score is 75, with higher scores reflecting an ic disruption but fail to delineate organ system derangements. Examples increased injury severity and mortality.9 The ISS is not calculated when of injury methods that evaluate anatomic status include the Abbreviated any single body region has an AIS value of 6; in such cases, an ISS value Injury Scale (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Anatomical Profile 6 2 of 75 is automatically assigned. Injury Severity Scores higher than 15 (AP). These injury scoring systems are based upon anatomic descriptions have been used as a proxy for injuries of sufficient magnitude to require of identified injuries and are retrospectively used to analyse trauma popu- 4 1 hospital or trauma centre care. However, it is inappropriate to use this as lations. In these systems, the site of the injury is important. the sole criterion for triaging because it does not also measure alterations Abbreviated Injury Scale in the physiology of the trauma patient. The AIS was first introduced in 1969 as an anatomic scoring system to There are several disadvantages to using the ISS.2 For example, the categorise automobile victims for epidemiological purposes.5 It under- ISS cannot be used as an initial triage tool because detailed assessment, went revision in 1990, and body regions for the AIS were identified as fol- and in some cases surgical exploration, must be performed before a full lows: head, face, neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvic content, spine, upper description of the injuries can be obtained. Also, the patient’s age and extremities, lower extremities, and unspecified. In this revised version, comorbidities are not taken into account. Furthermore, multiple injuries external injuries are dispersed across body regions, and the AIS provides a to the same body area are not weighted higher than a single injury to that reasonably accurate way of ranking the severity of injury by body regions. area. Lastly, the ISS uses only three regions, so that injuries from the With the AIS, injuries are ranked on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to three remaining regions are not taken into account. 6, with 1 being considered a minor injury or least severe, 5 being a severe In spite of these limitations, the ISS has been validated as a predictor of injury or survival uncertain, and 6 being an unsurvivable injury6 (Table trauma mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit 26.1). The AIS scores can be found in the AIS Dictionary Manual,7 a stay, and it may have usefulness in predicting morbidity. It is currently the compendium of more than 1200 injuries. An AIS score ≥3 is considered most widely used injury scoring system.1,9 Automated ISS calculators are serious. The AIS correlates well with the degree of injury but suffers as available to compute the value of the ISS once the AIS scores are entered. a prognostic tool because it does not take physiologic derangements or The ISS score can also be computed manually as follows: chronic health into account. It is not intended to reflect patient outcomes, ISS = ∑ [(AIS of most severe injury in ISS region)2 but only to score an individual injury. Its other limitation is that it does + (AIS score of next most severe injury in another not provide a comprehensive measure of severity of injury because it ISS region)2 focuses on singular but not combined injuries of the patient. + (AIS score of most severe injury in any remaining ISS region)2] Paediatric Injury Scoring and Trauma Registry 165 An illustration of how to calculate ISS is shown in Table 26.2. Table 26.2: Sample calculation of ISS. The ISS score for the example in Table 26.2 is 50, which is a very severe injury requiring the patient to be admitted to a hospital for Square of Body region Description of injury AIS score top three AIS trauma care. Patients with ISS scores ≥15 should be cared for in a scores hospital or trauma centre with adequate resources and experience in Head and neck Cerebral contusion 3 9 trauma care. The ISS calculations include spine injuries in the corresponding Face Minor injury 1 16 three ISS body regions: cervical in ISS head or neck, thoracic in ISS chest, and lumbar in ISS abdominal or pelvic contents. Chest Unilateral flail chest 4 25 New and Modified ISS Pneumothorax 3 In 1997, a simple modification of ISS was formulated and referred to Abdomen Minor contusion of bowel 2 as the New ISS (NISS).10 It is defined as the sum of the squares of the Completely shattered 5 AIS of each of the patient’s most severe AIS injuries irrespective of the spleen body region in which they occur.3,5,10 The NISS is reported to predict survival better3 than the ISS by better predicting mortality in the more Extremity Femoral shaft fracture 3 11 severely injured patients, and it is simpler to calculate. Skin Minor injury 1 There is also a Modified ISS (MISS), specifically intended for paediatric trauma cases. This modification was made to account for Injury Severity Score = 50 the predominance of head injuries in paediatric trauma patients.5 In the MISS, the number of body regions is reduced to four: face/neck, chest, abdomen/pelvic contents, and extremities/pelvis.5 The MISS uses the Table 26.3: The Modified Injury Severity Score (MISS). Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS; see next section) value categories (Table Glasgow Coma Scale Neurologic score 26.3) to determine the AIS head region scores and also assigns injuries of the skin/general category within any of the four body regions listed 15 1: Minor above. The MISS is calculated by summing the squared AIS values 13–14 2: Moderate for the three most severely injured body regions. Several studies have 9–12 3: Severe, not life-threatening validated the MISS in paediatric trauma and have shown it to accurately identify patients at high risk for mortality and long-term disability.12 In 5–8 4: Severe, survival probable spite of this, the MISS is not widely used because improvements have 3–4 5: Critical, survival uncertain been made in the more recent versions of the AIS and ISS. Anatomical Profile The AP addresses some of the shortcomings of the ISS. It uses the AIS descriptors of anatomic injury, but includes only four body regions: A = Table 26.4: Sample calculation of AP. head/brain and spinal cord; B = thorax/neck; C = all other serious inju- Component Injury AIS score ries other than in the areas of A and B; and D = all nonserious injuries.1,2 Injuries with an AIS value >2, which are defined as serious, are scored for 1. Head/brain 5 1 A the first three categories above. All minor injuries, defined as AIS scores 2. Spinal cord 3 2 of ≤2, are classified as nonserious, regardless of their anatomic location. 1. Thorax 4 The total AP score is the sum of the square roots of the sum of the squares B of the AIS for all individual injuries within a region1,2 (Table 26.4).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prediction of Mortality Rate of Trauma Patients in Emergency Room at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital by Several Scoring Systems
    Vol. 22, No. 4, November 2013 Prediction of mortality rate in trauma patients 227 Prediction of mortality rate of trauma patients in emergency room at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital by several scoring systems Pande M.W. Tirtayasa, Benny Philippi Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia Abstrak Latar belakang: Penanganan trauma dikenal sebagai salah satu tantangan utama pada pelayanan kesehatan saat ini. Sistem skor trauma yang mudah digunakan dapat memberi informasi pada dokter mengenai tingkat keparahan pasien dan membantu dalam pengambilan keputusan mengenai tatalaksana pasien berikutnya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menentukan sistem skor trauma yang paling sesuai dengan membandingkan prediksi angka mortalitas menggunakan sistem skor: 1) triage-revised trauma score (T-RTS); 2)mekanisme, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), umur, dan tekanan arteri (MGAP); 3) dan GCS, umur, dan tekanan darah sistolik (GAP) pada pasien trauma di Instalasi Gawat Darurat (IGD) Rumah Sakit Cipto Mangunkusumo (RSCM). Metode: Penelitian dilakukan secara retrospektif menggunakan data status pasien dengan trauma yang datang ke ruang resusitasi IGD RSCM sepanjang tahun 2011. Sebanyak 185 pasien trauma ditangani di ruang resusitasi IGD RSCM. Kriteria inklusi adalah semua pasien trauma yang langsung datang atau dibawa ke ruang resusitasi IGD RSCM. Kriteria eksklusi adalah pasien rujukan dari rumah sakit lain dan semua pasien trauma anak (<18 tahun). Data dasar pasien dihitung berdasarkan masing-masing trauma skor. Luaran (pasien hidup atau meninggal) dicatat dalam 24 jam pertama sejak masuk rumah sakit. Hasil: Sebanyak 124 kasus dianalisis dengan rerata usia 32,4 tahun dan angka kesudahan meninggal sebanyak 23 (18,5%) kasus. Angka mortalitas kelompok risiko rendah pada system skor T-RTS, MGAP, dan GAP berturut-turut sebesar 5%, 1,3%, dan 1,4% (p = 1,000).
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score for Mortality Prediction in Elderly Trauma Patients
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Comparison of Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score and Trauma and Injury Severity Score for mortality prediction in elderly trauma patients Shahrokh Yousefzadeh-Chabok, M.D.,1,2 Marieh Hosseinpour, M.D.,1 Leila Kouchakinejad-Eramsadati, M.D.,1 Fatemeh Ranjbar, M.D.,2 Reza Malekpouri, M.D.,1 Alireza Razzaghi, M.D.,1 Zahra Mohtasham-Amiri, M.D.1,3 1Guilan Road Trauma Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht-Iran 2Department of Neurosurgery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht-Iran 3Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht-Iran ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Trauma is the fifth leading cause of death in patients 65 years and older. This study is a comparison of results of Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in prediction of mortality in cases of geriatric trauma. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of records of 352 elderly trauma patients who were admitted to Pour-Sina Hospital in Rasht between 2010 and 2011. Injury scoring systems were compared in terms of specificity, sensitivity, and cut-off points using re- ceiver operating characteristic curve of patient prognosis. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 71.5 years. Most common mechanism of injury was traffic accident (53.7%). Of the total, 13.9% of patients died. Mean ISS was higher for patients who did not survive. Mean of TRISS and RTS scores in elderly survivors was higher than non-survivors and difference in all 3 scores was statistically significant (p<0.001). Best cut-off points for predicting mortality in elderly trauma patients in RTS, ISS, and TRISS systems were ≤6, ≥13.5, and ≤2, with sensitivity of 99%, 84%, and 95% and specificity of 62%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Trauma Scoring System to Predict In-Hospital Mortality in the Emergency Department: Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure Score
    Revised trauma scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in the emergency department: Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure score The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Kondo, Yutaka, Toshikazu Abe, Kiyotaka Kohshi, Yasuharu Tokuda, E Francis Cook, and Ichiro Kukita. 2011. Revised trauma scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in the emergency department: Glasgow coma scale, age, and systolic blood pressure score. Critical Care 15(4): R191. Published Version doi:10.1186/cc10348 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10497285 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Kondo et al. Critical Care 2011, 15:R191 http://ccforum.com/content/15/4/R191 RESEARCH Open Access Revised trauma scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality in the emergency department: Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure score Yutaka Kondo1, Toshikazu Abe2*, Kiyotaka Kohshi3, Yasuharu Tokuda4, E Francis Cook5 and Ichiro Kukita1 Abstract Introduction: Our aim in this study was to assess whether the new Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Systolic Blood Pressure (GAP) scoring system, which is a modification of the Mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, Age, and Arterial Pressure (MGAP) scoring system, better predicts in-hospital mortality and can be applied more easily than previous trauma scores among trauma patients in the emergency department (ED).
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Management Guidelines for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma Patients: the EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group Frederick B
    CLINICAL MANAGEMENT ௡ UPDATE The Journal of TRAUMA Injury, Infection, and Critical Care Practice Management Guidelines for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma Patients: The EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group Frederick B. Rogers, MD, Mark D. Cipolle, MD, PhD, George Velmahos, MD, PhD, Grace Rozycki, MD, and Fred A. Luchette, MD J Trauma. 2002;53:142–164. he Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma ommendation means the recommendation is reasonably jus- (EAST) has taken a leadership role in the development tifiable, usually on the basis of a preponderance of Class II Tof evidenced-based practice guidelines for trauma.1 data. If there are not enough Class I data to support a Level These original guidelines were developed by interested I recommendation, they may be used to support a Level II trauma surgeons in 1997 for the EAST Web site (www.eas- recommendation. A Level III recommendation is generally t.org), where a brief summary of four guidelines was pub- only supported by Class III data. lished. A revised, complete, and significantly edited practice These practice guidelines address eight different areas of management guidelines for the prevention of venous throm- practice management as they relate to the prevention and boembolism in trauma patients is presented herein. diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in trauma patients. The step-by-step process of practice management guide- There are few Level I recommendations because there is a line development, as outlined by the Agency for Health Care paucity of Class I data in the area of trauma literature. We Policy and Research (AHCPR), has been used as the meth- believe it is important to highlight areas where future inves- odology for the development of these guidelines.2 Briefly, the tigation may bring about definitive Level I recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • SMJ-59-150.Pdf
    Singapore Med J 2018; 59(3): 150-154 Original Article https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2017074 Management of computed tomography-detected pneumothorax in patients with blunt trauma: experience from a community-based hospital Ashraf F Hefny1,2, MD, Fathima T Kunhivalappil3, MD, Nikolay Matev3, MD, Norman A Avila4, BSN, Masoud O Bashir1, MD, Fikri M Abu-Zidan2, MD, PhD INTRODUCTION Diagnoses of pneumothorax, especially occult pneumothorax, have increased as the use of computed tomography (CT) for imaging trauma patients becomes near-routine. However, the need for chest tube insertion remains controversial. We aimed to study the management of pneumothorax detected on CT among patients with blunt trauma, including the decision for tube thoracostomy, in a community-based hospital. METHODS Chest CT scans of patients with blunt trauma treated at Al Rahba Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, from October 2010 to October 2014 were retrospectively studied. Variables studied included demography, mechanism of injury, endotracheal intubation, pneumothorax volume, chest tube insertion, Injury Severity Score, hospital length of stay and mortality. RESULTS CT was performed in 703 patients with blunt trauma. Overall, pneumothorax was detected on CT for 74 (10.5%) patients. Among the 65 patients for whom pneumothorax was detected before chest tube insertion, 25 (38.5%) needed chest tube insertion, while 40 (61.5%) did not. Backward stepwise likelihood regression showed that independent factors that significantly predicted chest tube insertion were endotracheal intubation (p = 0.01), non-United Arab Emirates nationality (p = 0.01) and pneumothorax volume (p = 0.03). The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the best pneumothorax volume that predicted chest tube insertion was 30 mL.
    [Show full text]
  • Injury Severity Scoring
    INJURY SEVERITY SCORING Injury Severity Scoring is a process by which complex and variable patient data is reduced to a single number. This value is intended to accurately represent the patient's degree of critical illness. In truth, achieving this degree of accuracy is unrealistic and information is always lost in the process of such scoring. As a result, despite a myriad of scoring systems having been proposed, all such scores have both advantages and disadvantages. Part of the reason for such inaccuracy is the inherent anatomic and physiologic differences that exist between patients. As a result, in order to accurately estimate patient outcome, we need to be able to accurately quantify the patient's anatomic injury, physiologic injury, and any pre-existing medical problems which negatively impact on the patient's physiologic reserve and ability to respond to the stress of the injuries sustained. Outcome = Anatomic Injury + Physiologic Injury + Patient Reserve GLASGOW COMA SCORE The Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) is scored between 3 and 15, 3 being the worst, and 15 the best. It is composed of three parameters : Best Eye Response, Best Verbal Response, Best Motor Response, as given below: Best Eye Response (4) Best Verbal Response (5) Best Motor Response (6) 1. No eye opening 1. No verbal response 1. No motor response 2. Eye opening to pain 2. Incomprehensible sounds 2. Extension to pain 3. Eye opening to verbal 3. Inappropriate words 3. Flexion to pain command 4. Confused 4. Withdrawal from pain 4. Eyes open spontaneously 5. Orientated 5. Localising pain 6. Obeys Commands Note that the phrase 'GCS of 11' is essentially meaningless, and it is important to break the figure down into its components, such as E3 V3 M5 = GCS 11.
    [Show full text]
  • In-Hospital Study of Combined Trauma Score and Outcome in Poly Trauma
    Sharma et al., J Surg Clin Pract 2020, 4:1 Journal of Surgery & Clinical Practice Research Article a SciTechnol journal Introduction In-Hospital Study of Combined Trauma leads to demise and disability globally. Global burden Trauma Score and Outcome in of disease study, injuries are accountable for 5.1 million deaths, and 15.2% of disability-adjusted life years lost [1,2]. According to the Poly Trauma WHO more than 1.2 million people die just in road accidents every year and as many as 50 million people are injured or disabled [2]. Sumit Sharma1, Meena NN2, Pratap A2, Saroj SK1, Shukla VK2 and Bhartiya SK1* To compare the severity and clinical outcome of trauma patients, injury severity scoring systems are widely accepted tools, trauma- related mortality depends on factors as injury severity, age, sex, Abstract mode of injury, quality of provided health care, and associated co- Background: Several Trauma scores are utilized to evaluate the morbidities [3]. injured victim. Physiologic, anatomic, combined (anatomic and physiologic) scoring systems are commonly used. There is no Several trauma scores are used to evaluate injured patients, consensus on the best predictor of mortality and morbidity. classified as physiologic, anatomic, and combined anatomic and Aim and Objective: To report in-hospital mortality and disability of physiologic scoring systems [4]. The majority of anatomic injury polytrauma cases in our trauma center. We studied and compare severity scores are based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), the the clinical and radiological parameters to trauma scores (RTS most widely used severity scores are the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and NISS) and their outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Injury Scoring System in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Lessons from Mumbai
    UCSF UC San Francisco Previously Published Works Title Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/53h0x7bz Journal Injury, 46(12) ISSN 0020-1383 Authors Laytin, AD Kumar, V Juillard, CJ et al. Publication Date 2015-12-01 DOI 10.1016/j.injury.2015.06.029 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 46 (2015) 2491–2497 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Injury jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/injury Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai a b a c Adam D. Laytin , Vineet Kumar , Catherine J. Juillard , Bhakti Sarang , a,b,c c a, Angela Lashoher , Nobhojit Roy , Rochelle A. Dicker * a Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA b Department of Surgery, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India c Department of Surgery, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital, Mumbai, India A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Introduction: Injury is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries. Accepted 15 June 2015 Effective trauma surveillance is imperative to guide research and quality improvement interventions, so an accurate metric for quantifying injury severity is crucial. The objectives of this study are (1) to assess Keywords: the feasibility of calculating five injury scoring systems – ISS (injury severity score), RTS (revised trauma Injury scoring score), KTS (Kampala trauma score), MGAP (mechanism, GCS (Glasgow coma score), age, pressure) and Trauma registry GAP (GCS, age, pressure) – with data from a trauma registry in a lower middle-income country and (2) to India determine which of these scoring systems most accurately predicts in-hospital mortality in this setting.
    [Show full text]
  • How Emergency Physicians Choose Chest Tube Size for Traumatic Pneumothorax Or Hemothorax: a Comparison Between 28Fr and Smaller Tube
    Nagoya J. Med. Sci. 82. 59–68, 2020 doi:10.18999/nagjms.82.1.59 How emergency physicians choose chest tube size for traumatic pneumothorax or hemothorax: a comparison between 28Fr and smaller tube Takafumi Terada1, Tetsuro Nishimura2, Kenichiro Uchida2, Naohiro Hagawa2, Maiko Esaki2 and Yasumitsu Mizobata2 1JA Aichi Koseiren Toyota Kosei Hospital, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Aichi, Japan 2Department of Traumatology and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan ABSTRACT Most traumatic pneumothoraxes and hemothoraxes can be managed non-operatively by means of chest tube thoracostomy. This study aimed to investigate how emergency physicians choose chest tube size and whether chest tube size affects patient outcome. We reviewed medical charts of patients who underwent chest tube insertion for chest trauma within 24 hours of admission in this retrospective, single-institution study. Patient characteristics, inserted tube size, risk of additional tube, and complications were evaluated. Eighty-six chest tubes were placed in 64 patients. Sixty-seven tubes were placed initially, and 19 addition- ally, which was significantly smaller than the initial tube. Initial tube size was 28 Fr in 38 and <28 Fr in 28 patients. Indications were pneumothorax (n=24), hemothorax (n=7), and hemopneumothorax (n=36). Initial tube size was not related to sex, BMI, BSA, indication, ISS, RTS, chest AIS, or respiratory status. An additional tube was placed in the same thoracic cavity for residual pneumothorax (n=13), hemothorax (n=1), hemopneumothorax (n=1), and inappropriate extrapleural placement (n=3). Risk of additional tube placement was not significantly different depending on tube size.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Trauma and Critical Care Scoring Systems Underestimate Mortality Among Vascular Trauma Patients
    From the Society for Clinical Vascular Surgery Existing trauma and critical care scoring systems underestimate mortality among vascular trauma patients Shang A. Loh, MD, Caron B. Rockman, MD, Christine Chung, BS, Thomas S. Maldonado, MD, Mark A. Adelman, MD, Neal S. Cayne, MD, H. Leon Pachter, MD, and Firas F. Mussa, MD, New York, NY Background: The impact of vascular injuries on patient mortality has not been well evaluated in multi-trauma patients. This study seeks to determine (1) whether the presence of vascular trauma negatively affects outcome compared with nonvascular trauma (NVT) and (2) the utility of existing severity scoring systems in predicting mortality among vascular trauma (VT) patients. Methods: A retrospective review of our trauma database from January 2005 to December 2007 was conducted. Demographics, Injury Severity Scores (ISS), Revised Trauma Scores (RTS), Trauma Score–Injury Severity Scores (TRISS), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores, and mortality rates were compared. Control patients were selected from a matching cohort based on ISS. Comparisons were made between groups based on the above scoring systems. Statistical analysis used ␹2 analysis and Student t-tests. Results: Fifty VT and 50 NVT patients were identified with no significant differences in age, gender, mechanism of injury, ISS, RTS, or TRISS. The mean APACHE II score was higher in VT compared with NVT (12.3 vs 8.8, P < .05). Overall VT .(108. ؍ mortality was higher in VT compared with NVT but did not reach statistical significance (24% vs 11.8%, P VT patients with an ISS score >24 had .(007.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functional Outcome of Patients Following Spinal Injury in Asia Metropolitans: Does the Prehospital Spine Immobilization Matter?
    The Functional Outcome of Patients Following Spinal Injury in Asia Metropolitans: Does the Prehospital Spine Immobilization Matter? Hsuan An Chen Far Eastern Memorial Hospital Shuo Ting Hsu Far Eastern Memorial Hospital Sang Do Shin Seoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital Sabariah Faizah Jamaluddin Universiti Teknologi MARA Do Ngoc Son Bach Mai Hospital Ki Jeong Hong Seoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital Hideharu Tanaka Graduate School of Kokushikan University Jen Tang Sun Far Eastern Memorial Hospital Wen-Chu Chiang ( [email protected] ) National Taiwan University Hospital Research Article Keywords: Patients, Spinal Injury, Prehospital, Immobilization Posted Date: July 27th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-724919/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/15 Abstract Prehospital spinal immobilization is a widely used procedure in the emergency medical service (EMS) system worldwide, while the incidence of patients with spinal injury (SI) is relatively low, and unnecessary prehospital spinal immobilization is associated with patient complications. This study aimed to determine the association between prehospital spine immobilization and favorable functional outcomes at hospital discharge among trauma patients with SI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) registry data from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018. A total of 759 patients with SI were enrolled from 43,752 trauma patients in the PATOS registry during the study period. The subjects had a median age of 58 years ( Q1−Q3,41−72), and 438 (57.7%) patients had prehospital spine immobilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating the Effect of Respiratory Indices to Predict Mortality and the Status of Trauma Patients Using Artificial Neural Networks
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.30.20143784; this version posted July 2, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license . Investigating the effect of respiratory indices to predict mortality and the status of trauma patients using artificial neural networks Zahra Hafezi1, Mohammad Sabouri*2, Milad Shayan3, Shahram Paydar4 1Department of Power and Control Engineering, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. [email protected], [email protected] 2Applied Control & Robotic Research Laboratory (ACRRL), Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. [email protected] 3Applied Control & Robotic Research Laboratory (ACRRL), Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. [email protected] 4 Trauma Research Center, Rajaee (Emtiaz) Trauma Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz, Iran. [email protected] * Corresponding author: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Introduction- Knowing the final status of trauma patients and clearly understanding their condition are always significant due to the complexity of injuries and the high dependence of the patient's condition on various factors. That is why it allows doctors to be able to provide required facilities in a broader perspective and perform appropriate action. In addition, it can avoid wasting time and energy and then increasing patient mortality. While, there are several ways to measure and predict the final status of patients but all of them have some defects.
    [Show full text]