Evaluation of injury severity score of missed injuries in pediatric trauma patients at institutional adult level II trauma center: Do we need a revised National Trauma policy for pediatric trauma?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajai Singh ◽  
RajeshwarNath Srivastava ◽  
Sabir Ali
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Adult Level ◽  
Missed Injuries ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Level Ii

Epidemiology of Traumatic Esophageal Injury: An Analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander A. Xu ◽  
Janis L. Breeze ◽  
Jessica K. Paulus ◽  
Nikolay Bugaev
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Traumatic Injury ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Esophageal Injury ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Adult Age ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
National Trauma Data Bank

Existing literature on traumatic injury of the esophagus (TIE) is limited. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of TIE. We reviewed the National Trauma Data Bank for the years 2010–2015. We described the demographics, characteristics, and outcomes of adult (age ≥16 years) TIE patients and also compared those factors in blunt versus penetrating TIE. The association between TIE and mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Thousand four hundred eleven adult TIE patients were identified (37 per 100,000 trauma patients, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 35, 39). TIE patients were younger (38 vs 52 years), more likely to be male (81% vs 62%), and more severely injured (Injury Severity Score ≥ 25: 45% vs 7%) than patients without TIE (all P < 0.001). TIE was observed 16 times more frequently with penetrating injuries (257 per 100,000, 95% CI: 240, 270) than with blunt injuries (16 per 100,000, 95% CI: 15, 18). Inhospital TIE mortality was 19 per cent. TIE patients had greater risk of mortality than other trauma patients, after adjusting for age, gender, and Injury Severity Score (odds ratio = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.7). Mortality in blunt and penetrating TIE did not differ. Although extremely rare, TIE is independently associated with a marked increase in mortality, even after adjusting for other risk factors.

scholarly journals Validation of Age-specific Survival Prediction in Pediatric Patients With Blunt Trauma Using Trauma and Injury Severity Score Methodology: A Ten-year Nationwide Observational Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiaki Toida ◽  
Takashi Muguruma ◽  
Masayasu Gakumazawa ◽  
Mafumi Shinohara ◽  
Takeru Abe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Blunt Trauma ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Survival Prediction ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Interval Group ◽  
Trauma And Injury

Abstract Background: In-hospital mortality in trauma patients decreased recently owing to improved trauma injury prevention systems. However, no study which evaluated the validity of Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in pediatrics by detailed classification of patients’ age and injury severity in Japan. This retrospective nationwide study evaluated the validity of TRISS in predicting survival in Japanese pediatric patients with blunt trauma by age and injury severity.Methods: Data were obtained from the Japan Trauma Data Bank during 2009−2018.Results: In all age categories, the area under the curve (AUC) for TRISS demonstrated high performance (0.935, 0.981, 0.979, and 0.977). The Accuracy of TRISS was 99.9%, 98.2%, 92.1%, 76.7%, 55.3%, and 72.1% in survival probability (Ps) interval groups (0.96−1.00), (0.91−0.95), (0.76.−0.90), (0.51−0.75), (0.26−0.50), and (0.00−0.25), respectively. The AUC for TRISS demonstrated moderate performance in the Ps interval group (0.96−1.00) and low performance in other Ps interval groups.Conclusions: The TRISS methodology appears to predict survival accurately in Japanese pediatric patients with blunt trauma; however, there were several problems in adopting the TRISS methodology for younger blunt trauma patients with higher injury severity. In the future, we should consider to conducting a simple, high-quality prediction model that is more suitable for pediatric trauma patients than the current TRISS model.

Laparoscopy in the Evaluation of Blunt Abdominal Injury in Level-I and II Pediatric Trauma Centers

2022 ◽  
pp. 000313482110335
Author(s):  
Aryan Haratian ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Karan Rajalingam ◽  
Matthew Dolich ◽  
Sebastian Schubl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Blunt Abdominal Injury ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I

Introduction An American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level-I (L-I) pediatric trauma center demonstrated successful laparoscopy without conversion to laparotomy in ∼65% of trauma cases. Prior reports have demonstrated differences in outcomes based on ACS level of trauma center. We sought to compare laparoscopy use for blunt abdominal trauma at L-I compared to Level-II (L-II) centers. Methods The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried (2014-2016) for patients ≤16 years old who underwent any abdominal surgery. Bivariate analyses comparing patients undergoing abdominal surgery at ACS L-I and L-II centers were performed. Results 970 patients underwent abdominal surgery with 14% using laparoscopy. Level-I centers had an increased rate of laparoscopy (15.6% vs 9.7%, P = .019 ); however they had a lower mean Injury Severity Score (16.2 vs 18.5, P = .002) compared to L-II centers. Level-I and L-II centers had similar length of stay ventilator days, and SSIs (all P > .05). Conclusion While use of laparoscopy for pediatric trauma remains low, there was increased use at L-I compared to L-II centers with no difference in LOS or SSIs. Future studies are needed to elucidate which pediatric trauma patients benefit from laparoscopic surgery.

Impact of Massive Transfusion and Aging Blood in Acute Trauma

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (10) ◽  
pp. 957-959
Author(s):  
Tanya Anand ◽  
Rajesh Ramnanan ◽  
Ruby Skinner ◽  
Maureen Martin
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Storage Time ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Massive Transfusion ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Duration Of Storage ◽  
Storage Times

Blood transfusions cause altered immunity and the duration of storage is contributory. In the era of massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) this impact is unclear, particularly as it relates to balanced transfusions. Trauma patients requiring our MTP after admission to our Level II trauma center were studied. The average age of blood transfused was calculated; old blood was a storage time of ≥14 days versus new blood <14 days. Blood to plasma ratios of 1:1 were compared with ratios >1:1. Infections, organ dysfunction multiorgan injury (MOD, and death were compared based on ratios and blood storage times. Of 2200 trauma admissions, 89 patients required MTP. Penetrating injuries were the majority, n = 53; and Injury Severity Score was 33 ± 14. Overall mortality was 31 per cent and sepsis was 28 per cent. Outcomes (storage time): Patients receiving old versus new blood had comparable age and Injury Severity Score. Sepsis rates, multiorgan injury and mortality were similar. Outcomes (packed red blood cells:fresh frozen plasma): Balanced transfusions (ratios of 1:1) demonstrated significant survival benefit and less infections compared with ratios >1:1. These data underscore the complexity of transfusion-related morbidity. In the modern era of MTP and balanced transfusions, the age of stored blood may not impact outcomes as demonstrated historically.

The Impact of American College of Surgeons Trauma Center Designation and Outcomes after Early Thoracotomy: A National Trauma Databank Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Bukur ◽  
Bernardino Castelo Branco ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Ramon Cestero ◽  
Leslie Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Pressure Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Impact

Trauma centers are designated by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) into four different levels based on resources, volume, and scientific and educational commitment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between ACS center designation and outcomes after early thoracotomy for trauma. The National Trauma Databank (v. 7.0) was used to identify all patients who required early thoracotomy. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were extracted. Patients were categorized according to ACS trauma center designation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of ACS trauma center designation on mortality. From 2002 to 2006, 1834 (77.4%) patients were admitted to a Level I ACS verified trauma center, 474 (20.0%) to a Level II, and 59 (3.6%) to a Level III/IV facility. After adjusting for differences between the groups, there were no significant differences in mortality (overall: 53.3% for Level I, 63.1% for Level II, and 52.5% for Level III/IV, adjusted P = 0.417; or for patients arriving in cardiac arrest: 74.9% vs 87.1% vs 85.0%, P = 0.261). Subgroup analysis did not show any significant difference in survival irrespective of mechanism of injury. Glasgow Coma Scale score # 8, Injury Severity Score >16, no admission systolic blood pressure, time from admission to thoracotomy, and nonteaching hospitals were found to be independent predictors of death. For trauma patients who have sustained injuries requiring early thoracotomy, ACS trauma center designation did not significantly impact mortality. Nonteaching institutions however, were independently associated with poorer outcomes after early thoracotomy. These findings may have important implications in educational commitment of institutions. Further prospective evaluation of these findings is warranted.

scholarly journals Early experience of a regional trauma center in Gangwon province: First step toward organizing a regional trauma system

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-210
Author(s):  
Kwangmin Kim ◽  
Hongjin Shim ◽  
Pil Young Jung ◽  
Seongyup Kim ◽  
Hui-Jae Bang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact

Background: The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare decided to establish a trauma medical service system to reduce preventable deaths. OO hospital in Gangwon Province was selected as a regional trauma center and was inaugurated in 2015. Objectives: This study examines the impact of this center, comparing mortality and other variables before and after inaugurating the center. Methods: Severely injured patients (injury severity score > 15) presenting to OO hospital between January 2014 and December 2016 were enrolled and categorized into two groups: before trauma center (n = 365) and after trauma center (n = 904). Patient characteristics, variables, and patient outcomes (including mortality rate) before and after the establishment of trauma centers were compared accordingly for both groups. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were also identified. Results: Probability of survival using trauma and injury severity score (%) method was significantly lower in the after trauma center group (81.3 ± 26.1) than in the before trauma center group (84.7 ± 21.0) (p = 0.014). In-hospital mortality rates were similar in both groups (before vs after trauma center group: 13.2% vs 14.2%; p = 0.638). The Z and W statistics revealed higher scores in the after trauma center group than in the before trauma center group (Z statistic, 4.69 vs 1.37; W statistic, 4.52 vs 2.10); 2.42 more patients (per 100 patients) survived after trauma center establishment. Conclusion: Although the mortality rates of trauma patients remained unchanged after the trauma center establishment, the Z and W statistics revealed improvements in the quality of care.

Should All Severely Injured Pediatric Patients be Treated at Pediatric Level I Trauma Centers? A National Trauma Data Bank Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (10) ◽  
pp. 927-931
Author(s):  
Shin Miyata ◽  
Tobias Haltmeier ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Kazuhide Matsushima ◽  
Catherine Goodhue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Pediatric Trauma ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
National Trauma Data Bank ◽  
Level I

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma stratification system for trauma centers presumes that increasing levels of resources will improve patient outcomes. Although some supportive data exist in adult trauma, there is a paucity of evidence demonstrating improved survival in pediatric trauma when patients are treated primarily at Level I versus Level II pediatric trauma centers. We hypothesized that there is no difference in the mortality of comparably injured pediatric patients treated at these two types of facilities. The study population consists of all severely injured pediatric patients (18 years old or younger, injury severity score > 15) registered in the National Trauma Data Bank, treated in designated pediatric trauma centers. A total of 13,803 patients were included in the analysis and were separated into two groups: Pediatric Level I trauma center (n = 9690) and Pediatric Level II trauma center (n = 4113). Although analysis of the clinical characteristics of the unmatched groups showed significant differences including mortality rate (11.7% vs 15.4%, P < 0.001), case matching technique, comparing 2956 pairs, successfully eliminated demographic differences and, when adjusted for injury severity, showed no difference in mortality between center types (10.0% vs 10.1%, P = 0.966, odds ratio of mortality = 0.996 and 95% confidence interval = 0.841–1.180). Subgroup analyses including Glasgow Coma Scale < 9, need for immediate procedures, and ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases) code groupings indicative of serious injury also failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in mortality between trauma center types.

Blood Utilization at a Level I Trauma Center: Is this as Good as it Gets?

2009 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 693-698
Author(s):  
Sebron W. Harrison ◽  
Russell L. Griffin ◽  
Jeffrey D. Kerby ◽  
Marisa B. Marques ◽  
Loring W. Rue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Severity Score ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Negative Binomial Regression ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Level I ◽  
Rbc Transfusion

Recognition of the adverse effects of allogeneic blood resulted in the decreased use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in surgical practice in the 1990s. Our objective was to evaluate patterns of RBC transfusion utilization among trauma patients during the current decade. Blunt trauma patients admitted to a regional trauma center between 2000 and 2007 were identified (n = 16,011). Annual trends in RBC utilization were estimated (negative binomial regression for continuous dependent variables and logistic regression for dichotomous variables). Models were stratified by Injury Severity Score to adjust for injury severity. Although the proportion of patients receiving a blood transfusion within 48 hours of hospitalization significantly increased ( P < 0.0001), there was no significant change in the rate of units transfused ( P = 0.5152) among transfused patients. After stratification by Injury Severity Score, a significantly decreasing trend in the proportion of severely injured patients transfused was observed ( P = 0.0243). Annual variation in the relatively less injured groups was not significant. In the current decade, transfusion utilization at a Level I trauma center has demonstrated minimal variation on a year-to-year basis. Among the severely injured, the temporal decrease in relatively early utilization of RBC transfusion may reflect increasing inclination to accept a greater degree of anemia in higher acuity patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document