scholarly journals Open Pelvic Fractures: Review of 30 Cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 772-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Giordano ◽  
Hilton Augusto Koch ◽  
Savino Gasparini ◽  
Felipe Serrão de Souza ◽  
Pedro José Labronici ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Fracture ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Outpatient Visit ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Pelvic Fractures ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Satisfactory Outcome ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Background: Open pelvic fractures are rare but usually associated with a high incidence of complications and increased mortality rates. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate all consecutive open pelvic fractures in patients treated at a single Level-1 Trauma Center during a 10-year interval. Patients and Methods: In a 10-year interval, 30 patients with a diagnosis of open pelvic fracture were admitted at a Level-1 Trauma Center. A retrospective analysis was conducted on data obtained from the medical records, which included patient’s age, sex, mechanism of injury, classification of the pelvic lesion, Injury Severity Score (ISS), emergency interventions, surgical interventions, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit stay, and complications, including perioperative complications and death. The Jones classification was used to characterize the energy of the pelvic trauma and the Faringer classification to define the location of the open wound. Among the survivors, the results were assessed in the last outpatient visit using the EuroQol EQ-5D and the Blake questionnaires. It was established the relationship between the mortality and morbidity and these classification systems by using the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test, with a level of significance of 5%. Results: Twelve (40%) patients died either from the pelvic lesion or related injuries. All of them had an ISS superior to 35. The Jones classification showed a direct relationship to the mortality rate in those patients (p = 0.012). In the 18 (60%) other patients evaluated, the mean follow-up was 16.3 months, ranging from 24 to 112 months. Eleven (61%) patients had a satisfactory outcome. The Jones classification showed a statistically significant relationship both to the objective and subjective outcomes (p < 5%). The Faringer classification showed a statistically significant relationship to the subjective, but not to the objective outcome. In addition, among the 18 patients evaluated at the last outpatient visit, the Faringer classification showed statistical significance on the need of colostomy (p = 0.001) in the acute phase of treatment. Conclusion: We suggest the routine use of the Jones classification for the emergency room assessment and management of all open fractures of the pelvic ring. We believe the Faringer classification seems to be useful for the abdominal surgeons for the indication of gut transit derivation but not for the acute management of the bony component of an open pelvic fracture.

Experience in an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center With Tranexamic Acid in Pediatric Trauma: A Retrospective Chart Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 088506661989083
Author(s):  
Julie M. Thomson ◽  
Hanh H. Huynh ◽  
Holly M. Drone ◽  
Jessica L. Jantzer ◽  
Albert K. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
End Points ◽  
Transfusion Requirements ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Background: Evidence for tranexamic acid (TXA) in the pharmacologic management of trauma is largely derived from data in adults. Guidance on the use of TXA in pediatric patients comes from studies evaluating its use in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. There is minimal data describing TXA safety and efficacy in pediatric trauma. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of TXA in the management of pediatric trauma and to evaluate its efficacy and safety end points. Methods: This retrospective, observational analysis of pediatric trauma admissions at Hennepin County Medical Center from August 2011 to March 2019 compares patients who did and did not receive TXA. The primary end point is survival to hospital discharge. Secondary end points include surgical intervention, transfusion requirements, length of stay, thrombosis, and TXA dose administered. Results: There were 48 patients aged ≤16 years identified for inclusion using a massive transfusion protocol order. Twenty-nine (60%) patients received TXA. Baseline characteristics and results are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise specified, with statistical significance defined as P < .05. Patients receiving TXA were more likely to be older, but there was no difference in injury type or Injury Severity Score at baseline. There was no difference in survival to discharge or thrombosis. Patients who did not receive TXA had numerically more frequent surgical intervention and longer length of stay, but these did not reach significance. Conclusions: TXA was utilized in 60% of pediatric trauma admissions at a single level 1 trauma center, more commonly in older patients. Although limited by observational design, we found patients receiving TXA had no difference in mortality or thrombosis.

Epidemiology of Burn Wounds Arriving to a Level 1 Trauma Center in Israel

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-321
Author(s):  
Dafna (Shilo) Yaacobi ◽  
Yehiel Hayun ◽  
Lior Har-Shai ◽  
Arik Litwin ◽  
Dean D Ad-El
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Hard Copy ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Male Predominance ◽  
Common Mean ◽  
Satisfactory Outcome ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Abstract Burn injuries have grave consequences for patients and impose a heavy economic burden on healthcare services. Studies on the epidemiology of burn injury in Israel are sparse and outdated, and improved understanding of current trends can help experts plan prevention campaigns and design effective treatment paradigms. This study sought to assess the background, clinical, and treatment characteristics of adult patients admitted with burn injury to a level 1 trauma center in Israel in 2005 to 2017. Data were retrospectively retrieved from the hard copy and electronic files as follows: patient sex and age; burn type, degree, and etiology; percentage total BSA (%TBSA) affected; and type of treatment and length of hospital stay (LOS). The cohort included 734 patients of mean age 41.79 years and a male-to-female ratio of 1.8:1. Thermal factors, particularly hot liquids, were the most common cause; second-degree burns were the most common. Mean %TBSA was 5.39%; mean LOS was 11.81 days; and mean LOS/%TBSA was 4.65. Advanced dressings alone yielded satisfactory outcome in 74.2% of patients. The relatively younger patient age and male predominance of our cohort were in line with published findings. The LOS was similar to previous studies in Israel but lower than in Europe. The LOS/%TBSA was higher than in the literature, with a decrease over time suggesting an increased effectiveness of treatment. There appears to be a decline in the rate of surgery for burn injury and increased expertise in the use of advanced dressings. National prevention campaigns should focus on scalds rather than flame-induced burns.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Endoscopic Realignment of Pelvic Fracture Associated Urethral Injuries at a Level 1 Trauma Center

2012 ◽  
Vol 188 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura S. Leddy ◽  
Alex J. Vanni ◽  
Hunter Wessells ◽  
Bryan B. Voelzke
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Fracture ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Urethral Injuries

scholarly journals Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Absolute Benefit ◽  
Predicted Probability ◽  
Prehospital Triage ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Level 2

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document