scholarly journals Is There Any Difference in the Outcome of Geriatric and Non-Geriatric Severely Injured Patients?—A Seven-Year, Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study with Matched-Pair Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3544
Author(s):  
Kai O. Jensen ◽  
Maximilian Lempert ◽  
Kai Sprengel ◽  
Hans P. Simmen ◽  
Carina Pothmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Geriatric Patients ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
International Normalized Ratio ◽  
Geriatric Trauma ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
Pair Analysis

Geriatric trauma is expected to increase due to the lifestyle and activity of the aging population and will be among the major future challenges in health care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate differences between polytraumatized geriatric and non-geriatric patients regarding mortality, length-of-stay and complications with a matched pair analysis. We included patients older than 17 years with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or more admitted to our level 1 trauma center between January 2008 and December 2015. The cohort was stratified into two groups (age < 70 and ≥ 70 years). One-to-one matching was performed based on gender, ISS, mechanism of injury (penetrating/blunt), Glasgow coma scale (GCS), base excess, and the presence of coagulopathy (international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.4). Outcome was compared using the paired t-test and McNemar-test. A total of 1457 patients were identified. There were 1022 male (70%) and 435 female patients. Three hundred and sixty-four patients (24%) were older than 70 years. Matching resulted in 57 pairs. Mortality as well as length-of-stay were comparable between geriatric and non-geriatric polytraumatized patients. Complication rate (34% vs. 56%, p = 0.031) was significantly higher in geriatric patients. This indicates the possibility of similar outcomes in geriatric polytraumatized patients receiving optimal care.

scholarly journals Is there any difference in the outcome of geriatric and non-geriatric severely injured patients? – A seven-year, retrospective, observational cohort study with matched-pair analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Oliver Jensen ◽  
Maximilian Lempert ◽  
Kai Sprengel ◽  
Hans-Peter Simmen ◽  
Carina Pothmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Geriatric Patients ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Aging Population ◽  
Geriatric Trauma ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Pair Analysis

Abstract Background: The aging population has a tremendous impact on health care. Geriatric trauma is expected to increase due to the lifestyle and activity of the aging population and will be one of the major future challenges in health care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate differences between polytraumatized geriatric and non-geriatric patients regarding 1) mortality, 2) length of stay, and 3) complications with a matched pair analysis. Methods: We included patients older than 17 years with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or more admitted to our level 1 trauma center between January 2008 and December 2015. The cohort was stratified into two groups (age < 70 years “non-geriatric”, age ≥ 70 years “geriatric”). One-to-one matching was performed based on gender, ISS, mechanism of injury (penetrating/blunt), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), base excess, and the presence of coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.4). Outcome was compared using the paired t-test and McNemar-test. Results: A total of 1457 patients with a mean age of 62 (± 21) years were identified. There were 1022 male (72%) and 435 female patients. Three hundred forty six patients (24%) were older than 70 years. Matching resulted in 57 pairs. 1) Mortality (25% vs 32% respectively; p = 0.219) as well as 2) length of stay (12.5 (± 13.3) days vs 11.8 (± 11.8) days respectively, p = 0.754) were comparable between geriatric and non-geriatric polytraumatized patients. 3) The complication rate (34% vs. 56%, p = 0.031) was significantly higher in geriatric patients. Conclusion: Despite significantly higher complication rates amongst the geriatric trauma patients, there were no significant differences regarding mortality and length of stay in this matched pair analysis – indicating the possibility of similar outcome in geriatric polytraumatized patients receiving optimal care.

Influence of Images in Online Reviews for Search Goods on Helpfulness

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-73
Author(s):  
Lars Osterbrink ◽  
Paul Alpar ◽  
Alexander Seher
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Choice ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Potential Interaction ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Social Commerce ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Pair Analysis ◽  
Positive Effect

AbstractReviewing and rating are important features of many social media websites, but they are found on many e-commerce sites too. The combination of social interaction and e-commerce is sometimes referred to as social commerce to indicate that people are supporting each other in the process of buying goods and services. Rgeviews of other consumers have a significant effect on consumer choice because they are usually considered authentic and more trustworthy than information presented by a vendor. The collaborative effort of consumers helps to make the right purchase decision (or prevent from a wrong one). The effect of reviews has often been researched in terms of helpfulness as indicated by their readers. Images are an important factor of helpfulness in reviews of experience goods where personal tastes and use play an important role. We extend this research to search goods where objective characteristics seem to prevail. In addition, we analyze potential interaction with other variables. The empirical study is performed with regression analyses on 3,483 search good reviews from Amazon.com followed by a matched pair analysis of 186 review pairs. We find that images have a significant positive effect on helpfulness of reviews of search goods too. This is especially true in case of short and ambiguous reviews.

410 ILEAL-CONDUIT – VS COLONIC-CONDUIT – A MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
R. Stein ◽  
A. Schröder ◽  
T. Hagen ◽  
J.W. Thüroff
Keyword(s):  
Ileal Conduit ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Colonic Conduit ◽  
Pair Analysis

Long-term evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes after laparoscopic open-assisted radical cystectomy: a matched-pair analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1455-1461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Albisinni ◽  
Ksenija Limani ◽  
Lisa Ingels ◽  
Felix Kwizera ◽  
Renaud Bollens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Cystectomy ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Term Evaluation ◽  
Pair Analysis

scholarly journals Holmium laser versus thulium laser enucleation of the prostate: a matched-pair analysis from two centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 223-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Maria Pirola ◽  
Giovanni Saredi ◽  
Ricardo Codas Duarte ◽  
Lorraine Bernard ◽  
Andrea Pacchetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Holmium Laser ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Urinary Flow ◽  
Thulium Laser ◽  
Homogeneous Groups ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Laser Enucleation ◽  
Pair Analysis

Background: The aim of our study was to compare perioperative and functional outcomes of two different prostatic laser enucleation techniques performed in two high-volume centers: 100 W holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (Lyon, France) and 110 W thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) (Varese, Italy). Materials and Methods: A nonrandomized, observational, retrospective and matched-pair analysis was performed on two homogeneous groups of 117 patients that underwent prostate laser enucleation in the HoLEP or ThuLEP centers between January 2015 and April 2017, following the classical ‘three lobes’ enucleation technique. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and prostate volume were the main parameters considered for matching the patients between the two groups. Patients on anticoagulant therapy, with documented detrusor hypoactivity or hyperactivity or with the finding of concurrent prostate cancer were excluded from the study. Follow up was assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Results: Median enucleation and morcellation time was 75.5 and 11.5 min, respectively, in the HoLEP group versus 70.5 and 12 min, respectively, in the ThuLEP group ( p = 0.001 and 0.49, respectively). Enucleated adenoma weight was comparable (44 g versus 45.6 g, p = 0.60). Energy index (3884.63 versus 4137.35 J/g, p = 0.30) and enucleation index (0.57 versus 0.6 g/min, p = 0.81) were similar in the two groups. Catheterization time was comparable (1 versus 1 day; p = 0.14). The International Prostate Symptom Score and Quality of Life score significantly decreased, as well as maximal urinary flow rate. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) drop 1 year after surgery was 2.1 ng/ml in the HoLEP group (−52.83%) versus 1.75 ng/ml in the ThuLEP group (−47.85%) ( p = 0.013). Conclusion: Both HoLEP (100 W) and ThuLEP (110 W) relieve lower urinary tract symptoms in a comparable way with high efficacy and safety, with negligible clinical differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document