scholarly journals Risk and resilience factors of persons exposed to accidents

2016 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-266
Author(s):  
Dana - Cristina Herta ◽  
Paula Brindas ◽  
Raluca Trifu ◽  
Doina Cozman

Background and aims. Resilience encompasses factors promoting effective functioning in the context of adversity. Data regarding resilience in the wake of accidental trauma is still scarce. The aim of the current study is to comparatively assess adaptive, life – promoting factors in persons exposed to motor vehicle accidents (MVA) vs. persons exposed to other types of accidents, and to identify psychological factors of resilience and vulnerability in this context of trauma exposure.Methods. We assessed 93 participants exposed to accidents out of 305 eligible patients from the Clinical Rehabilitation Hospital and Cluj County Emergency Hospital. The study used Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL) and Life Events Checklist. Scores were comparatively assessed for RFL items, RFL scale and subscales in participants exposed to motor vehicle accidents (MVA) vs. participants exposed to other life – threatening accidents.Results. Participants exposed to MVA and those exposed to other accidents had significantly different scores in 7 RFL items. Scores were high in 4 out of 6 RFL subscales for both samples and in most items comprising these subscales, while in the other 2 subscales and in some items comprising them scores were low.Conclusions. Low fear of death, physical suffering and social disapproval emerge as risk factors in persons exposed to life – threatening accidents. Love of life, courage in life and hope for the future are important resilience factors after exposure to various types of life – threatening accidents. Survival and active coping beliefs promote resilience especially after motor vehicle accidents. Coping with uncertainty are more likely to foster resilience after other types of life – threatening accidents. Attachment of the accident victim to family promotes resilience mostly after MVA, while perceived attachment of family members to the victim promotes resilience after other types of accidents.  

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiharu Kim ◽  
Yutaka Matsuoka ◽  
Ulrich Schnyder ◽  
Sara Freedman ◽  
Robert Ursano

Author(s):  
Kelvin Allenson ◽  
Laura Moore

Trauma related injury is the leading cause of non-obstetric maternal death.  The gravid uterus is at risk for injury, particularly during motor vehicle accidents.  Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a means of controlling pelvic hemorrhage in the setting of trauma.  We report the use of REBOA in a hemodynamically unstable, multiply-injured young woman with viable intrauterine pregnancy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 121 ◽  
pp. 108046
Author(s):  
Mintao Lin ◽  
Jiani Chen ◽  
Sisi Li ◽  
Yingjie Qin ◽  
Xuruan Wang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Imthiaz Manoly ◽  
Mohamed El Tahan ◽  
Maymoona Al Shuaibi ◽  
Fatimah Adel ◽  
Mohammed Al Harbi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard-of-care for treating traumatic aortic injury (TAI). Few retrospective studies compared TEVAR to open repair in blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI). Our objectives were to compare the early outcomes of TEVAR for blunt traumatic descending aortic injury to open repair (OR) in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents (MVA). Results Between February 2005 and April 2017, 71 patients with TAI due to MVA presented to our institution. All patients with descending aortic injuries were considered for open repair (n = 41) or TEVAR (n = 30) if there was no contraindication. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay. The mean age was 28.4 ± 10.1 years in the OR group and 33.3 ± 16.6 years in TEVAR-group (P = 0.13). The injury severity scores were 41 ± 10 in the OR group and 33 ± 17 in the TEVAR group (P = 0.03). Patients in the OR group underwent emergency repair with a mean time of 0.56 ± 0.18 days from arrival. The TEVAR group had a longer time interval between arrival and procedure (2.1 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.001). The OR group had more blood transfusion (24 (58.5%) vs. 8 (27.5%), P = 0.002), renal impairment (6 (14.6%) vs. 1 (5.50%), P = 0.23), and wound infection (21 (51.2%) vs. 3 (10%), P < 0.001). Three TEVAR patients had a perioperative stroke compared to two patients in the OR group (P = 0.64). There was no difference in the mean ICU (6 ± 8.9 vs. 5.3 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.1) or hospital stay (20.1 ± 12.3 vs. 20.1 ± 18.3, P = 0.62) between the two groups. There were four deaths in the OR group and none in the TEVAR group (P = 0.13). Conclusion The results of TEVAR were comparable with the open repair for traumatic aortic injury with good early postoperative outcomes. TEVAR repair could be associated with lower mortality, blood transfusion, and infective complications. However, the complexity of the injury and technical challenges were higher in the open group.


1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 521-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Vingilis ◽  
Carolyn B. Liban ◽  
Holly Blefgen ◽  
Donald Colbourne ◽  
D. Reynolds

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document