BACKGROUND: The factors important in determining outcome when managing adult blunt splenic injuries continue to be debated. Whether trauma center level designation (Level I versus Level II) affects patient management has not been evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database that collected information from 27 statewide trauma centers (Level I [15], Level II [17]). Adult patients (ages > or = 16 years) with blunt splenic injuries (ICD-9-CM 865) were evaluated. Demographic data, injury data, and trauma center level designation were collected, and patient management, length of stay, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 2,138 adult patients who suffered blunt splenic injuries during the study period (1998-2000). Patients treated at Level II trauma centers (n = 772) had a higher rate of operative treatment (38.2% versus 30.7%) (p < 0.001), but a shorter mean length of stay (10.1 +/- 0.4 versus 12.0 +/- 0.4 days) (p < 0.01) compared with patients in Level I trauma centers (n = 1,366). The rate of failure of nonoperative treatment was lower at Level II trauma centers (13.0% versus 17.6%) (p < 0.05), but the mortality for patients managed nonoperatively was higher (8.4% versus 4.5%) (p < 0.05). Splenorrhaphy was performed more frequently in Level I trauma centers. CONCLUSIONS: Management differences exist in the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries between institutions of different trauma center level designation. Multicenter studies should account for this finding in design and implementation.
BACKGROUND: The factors important in determining outcome when managing adult blunt splenic injuries continue to be debated. Whether trauma center level designation (Level I versus Level II) affects patient management has not been evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database that collected information from 27 statewide trauma centers (Level I [15], Level II [17]). Adult patients (ages > or = 16 years) with blunt splenic injuries (ICD-9-CM 865) were evaluated. Demographic data, injury data, and trauma center level designation were collected, and patient management, length of stay, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 2,138 adult patients who suffered blunt splenic injuries during the study period (1998-2000). Patients treated at Level II trauma centers (n = 772) had a higher rate of operative treatment (38.2% versus 30.7%) (p < 0.001), but a shorter mean length of stay (10.1 +/- 0.4 versus 12.0 +/- 0.4 days) (p < 0.01) compared with patients in Level I trauma centers (n = 1,366). The rate of failure of nonoperative treatment was lower at Level II trauma centers (13.0% versus 17.6%) (p < 0.05), but the mortality for patients managed nonoperatively was higher (8.4% versus 4.5%) (p < 0.05). Splenorrhaphy was performed more frequently in Level I trauma centers. CONCLUSIONS: Management differences exist in the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries between institutions of different trauma center level designation. Multicenter studies should account for this finding in design and implementation.
Authors: A Böyük; M Gümüş; A Önder; M Kapan; I Aliosmanoğlu; F Taşkesen; Z Arıkanoğlu; E Gedik Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Cornelis H van der Vlies; Otto M van Delden; Bastiaan J Punt; Kees J Ponsen; Jim A Reekers; J Carel Goslings Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 2.740