Upper Extremity Injuries Seen at a Level 1 Trauma Center

2018 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 515-518
Author(s):  
Eric Wenzinger ◽  
Robinder Singh ◽  
Fernando Herrera
Author(s):  
Miliaan L. Zeelenberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
Sascha Halvachizadeh ◽  
Hans-Christian Pape ◽  
Michael H.J. Verhofstad ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 08 (02) ◽  
pp. 086-090 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Grantham ◽  
Philip To ◽  
Jeffry Watson ◽  
Jeremy Brywczynski ◽  
Donald Lee

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000567
Author(s):  
Victoria A Scala ◽  
Michael S Hayashi ◽  
Jason Kaneshige ◽  
Elliott R Haut ◽  
Karen Ng ◽  
...  

BackgroundAlthough rare, human–shark interactions can result in a wide spectrum of injuries. This is the first study to characterize shark-related injuries (SRIs) in Hawai’i.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of the State of Hawai’i Division of Aquatic Resources Shark Incidents List between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019. Trauma registry data and medical records of patients treated for SRIs at the only level 1 trauma center in Hawai’i were reviewed.ResultsSixty-one patients sustained SRIs in the Hawaiian Islands: 25 in Maui, 16 in O’ahu, 12 in Hawai’i, and 8 in Kaua’i. In cases where the shark species could be identified, tiger sharks were the most frequent (25, 41%). Four cases were fatal—all died on scene in Maui with the shark species unknown. Forty-five survivors (79%) received definitive care at regional facilities. Twelve (21%) were treated at the level 1 trauma center, of which two were transferred in for higher level of care. Of the 12 patients, 11 (92%) had extremity injuries, with 3 lower extremity amputations (25%), 2 with vascular injuries (17%), and 5 with nerve injuries (42%). One had an injury to the abdomen. All patients had local bleeding control in the prehospital setting, with 9 (75%) tourniquets and 3 (25%) hemostatic/pressure dressings applied for truncal or proximal extremity injuries. The mean time from injury to emergency department arrival was 63 minutes.DiscussionMost SRIs are managed at regional facilities, rather than at a level 1 trauma center. Prehospital hemorrhage control is an important survival skill as time to definitive care may be prolonged. For cases treated at the level 1 trauma center, nerve injuries were common and should be suspected even in the absence of major vascular injury. Correlating shark behavior with observed injury patterns may help improve public awareness and ocean safety.Level of evidenceLevel V, epidemiological.


Author(s):  
Andrew J. Straszewski ◽  
Kathryn Schultz ◽  
Jason L. Dickherber ◽  
James S. Dahm ◽  
Jennifer Moriatis Wolf ◽  
...  

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document