scholarly journals Increase in gunshot wounds at a level 1 trauma center following the COVID19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. e159
Author(s):  
Anokha A. Padubidri ◽  
Amy Rushing ◽  
George Ochenjele ◽  
John Sontich ◽  
Joshua Napora ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford L Crutcher ◽  
John M Wilson ◽  
Anthony M DiGiorgio ◽  
Erin S Fannin ◽  
Jessica A Shields ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Treatment of penetrating gunshot wounds (GSW) to the spine remains controversial. The decision to operate is often based on surgeon preference and experience. We present a case series of 7 patients who underwent minimally invasive thoracolumbar/sacral decompression and bullet removal at a level 1 trauma center. OBJECTIVE To describe the use of minimally invasive techniques to achieve decompression and bullet removal for GSW to the spine. METHODS From 2010 to 2017, 7 patients with spinal GSW underwent minimally invasive decompression and bullet removal at an academic level 1 trauma center. RESULTS Patient ages ranged from 20 to 55 yr (mean: 31 yr). The mechanisms of injury were GSW to the abdomen/pelvis (n = 6) and direct GSW to the spine (n = 1). Based on the neurological examination, the injuries were characterized as complete (n = 1) or incomplete (n = 6). Decompression and bullet removal were performed using a tubular retractor system. All patients with incomplete injuries who had postdischarge follow-up demonstrated some neurologic recovery. There were no postoperative wound infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) fistulas, or other complications related to the procedure. CONCLUSION Minimally invasive decompression and bullet removal is a safe technique that may help reduce the risk of postoperative infections and CSF fistulas in patients with GSW to the lumbar spine compared to the standard open technique. This approach appears to be particularly beneficial in patients with incomplete injuries and neuropathic pain refractory to medical treatment.


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 ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.


2016 ◽  
Vol 181 (5) ◽  
pp. 459-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vilas Saldanha ◽  
Fia Yi ◽  
Jeffrey D. Lewis ◽  
Nichole K. Ingalls

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document