Commonly Missed Injuries in the Patient with Polytrauma and the Orthopaedist’s Role in the Tertiary Survey

Background and Aims: Injuries are often missed during the primary and secondary surveys in trauma patients. Studies have suggested that a formal tertiary survey protocol lowers the number of missed injuries. Our aim was to determine the number, severity, and consequences of injuries missed by a non-formalized trauma tertiary survey, but detected within 3 months from the date of injury in trauma patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit. Material and Methods: We conducted a cohort study of trauma patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit between 1 January and 17 October 2013. We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit in order to register any missed injuries, their delay, and possible consequences. We classified injuries into four types: Type 0, injury detected prior to trauma tertiary survey; Type I, injury detected by trauma tertiary survey; Type II, injury missed by trauma tertiary survey but detected prior to discharge; and Type III, injury missed by trauma tertiary survey and detected after discharge. Results: During the study period, we identified a total of 841 injuries in 115 patients. Of these injuries, 93% were Type 0 injuries, 3.9% were Type I injuries, 2.6% were Type II injuries, and 0,1% were Type III injuries. Although most of the missed injuries in trauma tertiary survey (Type II) were fractures (50%), only 2 of the 22 Type II injuries required surgical intervention. Type II injuries presumably did not cause extended length of stay in the intensive care unit or in hospital and/or morbidity. Conclusion: In conclusion, the missed injury rate in trauma patients admitted to trauma intensive care unit after trauma tertiary survey was very low in our system without formal trauma tertiary survey protocol. These missed injuries did not lead to prolonged hospital or trauma intensive care unit stay and did not contribute to mortality. Most of the missed injuries received non-surgical treatment.

Download Full-text

Delayed diagnosed trauma in severely injured patients despite guidelines-oriented emergency room treatment: there is still a risk

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00068-021-01754-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Arnold J. Suda ◽

Kristine Baran ◽

Suna Brunnemer ◽

Manuela Köck ◽

Udo Obertacke ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Delayed Diagnosis ◽

Whole Body ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Trauma Room ◽

Strict Adherence ◽

Missed Injuries ◽

Whole Body Ct ◽

Tertiary Survey ◽

Life Threatening ◽

Emergency Trauma Room

Abstract Purpose Emergency trauma room treatment follows established algorithms such as ATLS®. Nevertheless, there are injuries that are not immediately recognized here. The aim of this study was to evaluate the residual risk for manifesting life-threatening injuries despite strict adherence to trauma room guidelines, which is different to missed injuries that describe recognizable injuries. Methods In a retrospective study, we included 2694 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency trauma room of one single level I trauma center between 2016 and 2019. In accordance with the trauma room algorithm, primary and secondary survey, trauma whole-body CT scan, eFAST, and tertiary survey were performed. Patients who needed emergency surgery during their hospital stay for additional injury found after guidelines-oriented emergency trauma room treatment were analyzed. Results In seven patients (0.26%; mean age 50.4 years, range 18–90; mean ISS 39.7, range 34–50), a life-threatening injury occurred in the further course: one epidural bleeding (13 h after tertiary survey) and six abdominal hollow organ injuries (range 5.5 h–4 days after tertiary survey). Two patients (0.07% overall) with abdominal injury died. The “number needed to fail” was 385 (95%–CI 0.0010–0.0053). Conclusion Our study reveals a remaining risk for delayed diagnosis of potentially lethal injuries despite accurate emergency trauma room algorithms. In other words, there were missed injuries that could have been identified using this algorithm but were missed due to other reasons. Continuous clinical and instrument-based examinations should, therefore, not be neglected after completion of the tertiary survey. Level of evidence Level II: Development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients (with universally applied reference “gold” standard).

Download Full-text