Hendrik Wyen1, Sebastian Wutzler1, Miriam Rüsseler1, Martin Mack2, Felix Walcher1, Ingo Marzi3,4. 1. Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 3. Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. marzi@trauma.uni-frankfurt.de. 4. Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. marzi@trauma.uni-frankfurt.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A regionalized approach to trauma care with the implementation of designated level I trauma centers has been shown to improve survival after multiple injuries. Our study aimed to describe the current reality in an urban German level I university trauma center concerning the primary admission of patients into the emergency room. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all multiple trauma patients that were prospectively documented in our documentation system TraumaWatch(®) from 2003 to 2007. Documentation included physiological findings as well as diagnostic and therapeutic procedures structured as: (A) preclinical phase; (B) emergency room treatment; (C) intensive care unit; and (D) final outcome according to the German Trauma Registry. RESULTS: In total, 1,848 patients were completely documented and, thus, analyzed. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 16.5 ± 14.1 points and the mean ± SD age was 38.7 ± 21.9 years. An increasing number of patients received whole-body computed tomography (48.8% in 2003 vs. 83.3%in 2007, p < 0.001) and, on average, the ISS increased over the years (14.4 points in 2003 vs. 17.9 points in 2007). The overall hospital mortality was 7.1%, without significant change over time. The completionofimagingdiagnostics became significantly faster for all of the documented procedures (X-ray pelvis, X-ray chest, whole-body CT, abdominal ultrasound) (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Descriptive data on the current reality in urban level I trauma care can be derived from our study. Additionally, we achieved improved time intervals for emergency diagnostics and treatment, while hospital mortality remained constant, despite a higher injury severity. This is due to a standardized protocol which is applied during the 24-h in-house attending coverage. CONCLUSION: Regionalized trauma care with designated level I trauma centers is justified by the improvement of time intervals and outcome, but adequate resources are required.
BACKGROUND: A regionalized approach to trauma care with the implementation of designated level I trauma centers has been shown to improve survival after multiple injuries. Our study aimed to describe the current reality in an urban German level I university trauma center concerning the primary admission of patients into the emergency room. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all multiple traumapatients that were prospectively documented in our documentation system TraumaWatch(®) from 2003 to 2007. Documentation included physiological findings as well as diagnostic and therapeutic procedures structured as: (A) preclinical phase; (B) emergency room treatment; (C) intensive care unit; and (D) final outcome according to the German Trauma Registry. RESULTS: In total, 1,848 patients were completely documented and, thus, analyzed. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 16.5 ± 14.1 points and the mean ± SD age was 38.7 ± 21.9 years. An increasing number of patients received whole-body computed tomography (48.8% in 2003 vs. 83.3%in 2007, p < 0.001) and, on average, the ISS increased over the years (14.4 points in 2003 vs. 17.9 points in 2007). The overall hospital mortality was 7.1%, without significant change over time. The completionofimagingdiagnostics became significantly faster for all of the documented procedures (X-ray pelvis, X-ray chest, whole-body CT, abdominal ultrasound) (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Descriptive data on the current reality in urban level I trauma care can be derived from our study. Additionally, we achieved improved time intervals for emergency diagnostics and treatment, while hospital mortality remained constant, despite a higher injury severity. This is due to a standardized protocol which is applied during the 24-h in-house attending coverage. CONCLUSION: Regionalized trauma care with designated level I trauma centers is justified by the improvement of time intervals and outcome, but adequate resources are required.
Entities:
Keywords:
Emergency surgery; Polytrauma management including prehospital and shockroom; Trauma management and education; Trauma systems
Authors: Michael Bernhard; Torben K Becker; Tim Nowe; Marko Mohorovicic; Marcus Sikinger; Thorsten Brenner; Goetz M Richter; Boris Radeleff; Peter-Jürgen Meeder; Markus W Büchler; Bernd W Böttiger; Eike Martin; André Gries Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ellen J MacKenzie; David B Hoyt; John C Sacra; Gregory J Jurkovich; Anthony R Carlini; Sandra D Teitelbaum; Harry Teter Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C A Kühne; S Ruchholtz; C Buschmann; J Sturm; C K Lackner; A Wentzensen; B Bouillon; C Waydhas; C Weber Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: F Walcher; M Kulla; S Klinger; R Röhrig; H Wyen; M Bernhard; I Gräff; U Nienaber; P Petersen; H Himmelreich; U Schweigkofler; I Marzi; R Lefering Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Falco Hietbrink; Shahin Mohseni; Diego Mariani; Päl Aksel Naess; Cristina Rey-Valcárcel; Alan Biloslavo; Gary A Bass; Susan I Brundage; Henrique Alexandrino; Ruben Peralta; Luke P H Leenen; Tina Gaarder Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 2.374