One-Year Mortality After Acetabular Fractures in Elderly Patients Presenting to a Level-1 Trauma Center

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. Bible ◽  
Adam Wegner ◽  
D. Jake McClure ◽  
Rishin J. Kadakia ◽  
Justin E. Richards ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather K. Vincent ◽  
Edward Haupt ◽  
Sonya Tang ◽  
Adaeze Egwuatu ◽  
Richard Vlasak ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahnaz Yadollahi ◽  
Mehrdad Anvar ◽  
Haleh Ghaem ◽  
Parsa Ravanfar ◽  
Shahram Paydar

Author(s):  
Andreas Harbrecht ◽  
Michael Hackl ◽  
Tim Leschinger ◽  
Stephan Uschok ◽  
Kilian Wegmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose E-scooters are a new type of urban transportation utilized in Germany since June 2019, primarily in larger cities in the context of sharing offers. Such electrically operated standing scooters can be driven at a maximum speed of 20 km/h. A helmet is not mandatory. The aim of this prospective study is to document the injury patterns over the period of 1 year and compare our findings with already available data. Methods Over a period of 1 year (July 2019–July 2020), data on E-scooter-related accidents treated at a level 1 trauma center of a major German city were prospectively documented. Injury patterns were analyzed, and epidemiological data evaluated. Results Fifty-nine (35 female, 24 male) accidents were included in the observation period. Mean age of accident victims was 30.03 years (± 9.32). Alcohol influence at the time of accident was detected in 9 cases (15.25%). Many of the accident victims suffered multiple injuries. Most of the injuries were upper (50.84%) and lower extremity (47.45%) as well as craniofacial injuries (62.71%). A helmet was not worn in any of the cases. Conclusion In the year following their introduction, E-scooter-related accidents have led to an additional burden on the emergency capacities of the involved University Hospital, especially in the summer months of 2019. Protective equipment is de facto not worn. Injuries to the extremities, head, and face were most common. None of the accident victims died. This coincides with results from other major cities in national and international comparison. A more intensive education about injury consequences of unprotected E-scooter use and the discussion of a possible obligation to wear a helmet and further protection equipment for the extremities should take place.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.


1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Edward T. Rupert ◽  
J. Duncan Harviel ◽  
Grace S. Rozycki ◽  
Howard R. Champion

2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 461-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Roden ◽  
Winnie Tong ◽  
Matthew Surrusco ◽  
William W. Shockley ◽  
John A. Van Aalst ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document