scholarly journals Índices de trauma em pacientes submetidos à laparotomia

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 299-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo Pereira Fraga ◽  
Mario Mantovani ◽  
Luís Alberto Magna
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Outcome Study ◽  
New Injury Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Outcome ◽  
Trauma And Injury

OBJETIVO: O trauma é um problema de saúde pública de enormes proporções. Constitui-se na principal causa de óbitos na população jovem. O Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) é um estudo descritivo e retrospectivo da gravidade das lesões e evolução dos pacientes, considerado como o maior arquivo contemporâneo de informações descritivas de traumatizados. O objetivo do presente estudo é comparar o cálculo retrospectivo do New Injury Severity Score (NISS) com o Injury Severity Score (ISS) já calculado prospectivamente, utilizando o Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) e uma simples modificação deste índice, denominado de NTRISS (New Trauma and Injury Severity Score), e também comparar esta população submetida à laparotomia com os pacientes do MTOS. MÉTODO: Foram estudados 1.380 pacientes adultos traumatizados e submetidos à laparotomia na Disciplina de Cirurgia do Trauma da Unicamp, em Campinas, durante um período de oito anos. Os dados avaliados foram: demográficos, causa do trauma (fechado ou penetrante, ferimento por projétil de arma de fogo ou arma branca), estado fisiológico na admissão (RTS), diagnóstico anatômico de lesões (ATI, ISS e NISS), probabilidade de sobrevida utilizando o TRISS e o NTRISS, e a evolução do paciente (sobrevivência ou óbito). Foram utilizadas as estatísticas Z e W, inicialmente descritas por Flora, a fim de comparar a predição de óbitos ou sobreviventes com o estudo controle (MTOS). RESULTADOS: A maioria dos pacientes (88,3%) era do sexo masculino e jovem (média de idade de 30,4 anos). O ferimento por projétil de arma de fogo foi o mecanismo de trauma mais freqüente, com 641 casos (46,4%). Quatrocentos e trinta pacientes (31,2%) sofreram trauma fechado. As médias do ATI, ISS e NISS foram, respectivamente, de 12,3, 17,6 e 22,1. A taxa global de mortalidade foi de 16,8% e os pacientes com trauma contuso tiveram a maior mortalidade (29,3%). O NISS identificou melhor os sobreviventes e óbitos se comparado ao ISS, obtendo-se uma maior especificidade com o NTRISS. Foi observado um número significativamente menor de sobreviventes do que o esperado pelo estudo basal, com Z -16,24 com o TRISS e Z -9,40 se aplicado o NTRISS. Variações no valor da estatística W para cada paciente mostraram uma diferença no número de óbitos equivalente a 7,89 mais casos de óbito do que o esperado pelo MTOS, por 100 pacientes tratados, ao se empregar o TRISS, enquanto que estes valores foram reduzidos para 5,14 utilizando-se o NTRISS. CONCLUSÕES: Os métodos utilizados para cálculo da probabilidade de sobrevivência apresentaram limitações, particularmente nesta população com predomínio dos traumas penetrantes. O NISS, com o seu derivado NTRISS, foi o escore que obteve uma melhor predição de sobrevivência se comparado com o ISS. Os resultados obtidos com o TRISS e NTRISS foram estatisticamente piores do que os do MTOS, porém este processo de monitorização destes pacientes traumatizados tem sido importante para assegurar uma condição continuada de controle de qualidade.

Comparison of Trauma and Injury Severity Score model with alternative approach in outcome prediction in trauma using National Trauma Database in Malaysia

Trauma ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won-Sun Chen ◽  
Shaun-Wen Huey Lee ◽  
Sabariah Jamaluddin ◽  
Chee-Piau Wong
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Outcome Prediction ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Polynomial Method ◽  
New Injury Severity Score ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Trauma And Injury

Objective The coefficients for the Trauma and Injury Severity Score are derived from the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) in North America, so the applicability of the MTOS-Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in different populations remains challenging. This study proposed an alternate TRISS model called National Trauma Database-TRISS, where the coefficients were derived from the National Trauma Database (NTrD) in Malaysia. Methods This study utilised data derived from the National Trauma Database in Malaysia with 70% of the cases being used to develop the NTrD-TRISS model, while model validation was conducted based on the remaining 30% of cases. Fractional polynomial method was applied to correct the non-linearity in the logit of Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New Injury Severity Score (NISS). The predictive validity of the NTrD-TRISS model was compared with the MTOS-TRISS model. The predictive validity of these models was further examined with ISS and NISS. Results A total of 5857 major trauma cases reported to 13 trauma centres located throughout Malaysia for patients aged 16 and above were included in the study. The outcome prediction in trauma from NTrD-TRISS model was found to be more accurate compared to the MTOS-TRISS model. Conclusions This study has ascertained the applicability of the MTOS-TRISS model in Malaysia. The outcome prediction in trauma from the NTrD-TRISS was found to outperform the MTOS-TRISS model. Given the complex computational nature of ISS, the MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models with NISS were recommended for future practical usage.

scholarly journals The role of the New Trauma and Injury Severity Score (NTRISS) for survival prediction

2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1353-1358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiane de Alencar Domingues ◽  
Regina Marcia Cardoso de Sousa ◽  
Lilia de Souza Nogueira ◽  
Renato Sérgio Poggetti ◽  
Belchor Fontes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Survival Probability ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Survival Prediction ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
New Injury Severity Score ◽  
Trauma And Injury

The objective of this study was to verify if replacing the Injury Severity Score (ISS) by the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) in the original Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) form would improve the survival rate estimation. This retrospective study was performed in a level I trauma center during one year. ROC curve was used to identify the best indicator (TRISS or NTRISS) for survival probability prediction. Participants were 533 victims, with a mean age of 38±16 years. There was predominance of motor vehicle accidents (61.9%). External injuries were more frequent (63.0%), followed by head/neck injuries (55.5%). Survival rate was 76.9%. There is predominance of ISS scores ranging from 9-15 (40.0%), and NISS scores ranging from 16-24 (25.5%). Survival probability equal to or greater than 75.0% was obtained for 83.4% of the victims according to TRISS, and for 78.4% according to NTRISS. The new version (NTRISS) is better than TRISS for survival prediction in trauma patients.

scholarly journals Schockraum- und Schwerverletztenversorgung als „Verlustgeschäft“

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Gross ◽  
Felix Amsler
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Diagnosis Related Groups ◽  
Case Mix ◽  
Multivariate Analyse ◽  
New Injury Severity Score ◽  
Case Mix Index

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Es galt herauszufinden, wie kostendeckend die Versorgung potenziell Schwerverletzter in einem Schweizer Traumazentrum ist, und inwieweit Spitalgewinne bzw. -verluste mit patientenbezogenen Unfall‑, Behandlungs- oder Outcome-Daten korrelieren. Methodik Analyse aller 2018 im Schockraum (SR) bzw. mit Verletzungsschwere New Injury Severity Score (NISS) ≥8 notfallmäßig stationär behandelter Patienten eines Schwerverletztenzentrums der Schweiz (uni- und multivariate Analyse; p < 0,05). Ergebnisse Für das Studienkollektiv (n = 513; Ø NISS = 18) resultierte gemäß Spitalkostenträgerrechnung ein Defizit von 1,8 Mio. CHF. Bei einem Gesamtdeckungsgrad von 86 % waren 66 % aller Fälle defizitär (71 % der Allgemein- vs. 42 % der Zusatzversicherten; p < 0,001). Im Mittel betrug das Defizit 3493.- pro Patient (allg. Versicherte, Verlust 4545.-, Zusatzversicherte, Gewinn 1318.-; p < 0,001). Auch „in“- und „underlier“ waren in 63 % defizitär. SR-Fälle machten häufiger Verlust als Nicht-SR-Fälle (73 vs. 58 %; p = 0,002) wie auch Traumatologie- vs. Neurochirurgiefälle (72 vs. 55 %; p < 0,001). In der multivariaten Analyse ließen sich 43 % der Varianz erhaltener Erlöse mit den untersuchten Variablen erklären. Hingegen war der ermittelte Deckungsgrad nur zu 11 % (korr. R2) durch die Variablen SR, chirurgisches Fachgebiet, Intensivaufenthalt, Thoraxverletzungsstärke und Spitalletalität zu beschreiben. Case-Mix-Index gemäß aktuellen Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) und Versicherungsklasse addierten weitere 13 % zu insgesamt 24 % erklärter Varianz. Diskussion Die notfallmäßige Versorgung potenziell Schwerverletzter an einem Schweizer Traumazentrum erweist sich nur in einem Drittel der Fälle als zumindest kostendeckend, dies v. a. bei Zusatzversicherten, Patienten mit einem hohen Case-Mix-Index oder einer IPS- bzw. kombinierten Polytrauma- und Schädel-Hirn-Trauma-DRG-Abrechnungsmöglichkeit.

Predictors of blunt diaphragm injury in Australia

Trauma ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 146040862110418
Author(s):  
Annelise M Cocco ◽  
Vignesh Ratnaraj ◽  
Benjamin PT Loveday ◽  
Kellie Gumm ◽  
Phillip Antippa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Rib Fractures ◽  
Organ Injury ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Missed Injury ◽  
Diaphragm Injury ◽  
Trauma Service

Introduction Blunt diaphragm injury (BDI) is an uncommon, potentially fatal consequence of blunt torso injury. While associations between BDI and other factors such as mechanism of injury or other injuries have been described elsewhere, little recent research has been done in Australia into BDI. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence rate of BDI in our centre, identify how it was diagnosed, determine rates of missed injury and identify predictive factors for BDI. The hypothesis was that patients with BDI would significantly differ to those without BDI. Methods All major trauma patients with blunt torso injuries at our Level 1 major trauma service from 2010 to 2018 were included. Data for patient demographics, other injuries, diagnosis and treatment of BDI were extracted. Patients with BDI were compared with patients without BDI in order to identify differences that could be used to predict BDI in future patients. Results Of 5190 patients with a blunt torso injury, 51 (0.98%) had a BDI at a mean age of 53 ± 19.6 years, and median Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 27(IQR 21–38.5) compared with 5139 patients with a mean age of 48.2 ± 20.7 years and median ISS of 21.9(IQR 14–26) who did not have a BDI. The diagnosis of BDI was made at CT ( n = 35), surgery ( n = 14) or autopsy ( n = 2). Blunt diaphragm injury was missed on index imaging for 11 of 43 patients (25.6%). On multivariate analysis, each point increase in ISS (OR 1.03, p = 0.02); rib fractures (OR 4.65, p = 0.004); splenic injury (OR 2.60, p = 0.004); and liver injury (OR 2.78, p = 0.003) were independently associated with BDI. Conclusion Injury Severity Score, rib fractures and solid abdominal organ injury increase the likelihood of BDI. In patients with these injuries, BDI should be considered even in the presence of normal CT findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document