Literature DB >> 31933040

Synergistic Effects of Forensic Medicine and Traumatology: Comparison of Clinical Diagnosis Autopsy Findings in Trauma-Related Deaths.

Uwe Schmidt1, Delovan Oramary2, Konrad Kamin2, Claas T Buschmann3, Christian Kleber2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Trauma is the third leading cause of death worldwide after cardiovascular and oncologic diseases. Predominant causes of trauma-related death (TD) are severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), hemorrhagic shock, and multiple organ failure. An analysis of TD is required in order to review the quality of trauma care and grasp how well the entire trauma network functions, especially for the most severely injured patients. Furthermore, autopsies not only reveal hidden injuries, but also verify clinical assumed causes of death. MATERIAL: During the study period of 3 years, a total of 517 trauma patients were admitted to our supraregional University Centre of Orthopaedics and Traumatology in Dresden. 13.7% (71/517) of the patients died after trauma, and in 25 cases (35.2%), a forensic autopsy was instructed by the federal prosecutor. The medical records, death certificates, and autopsy reports were retrospectively evaluated and the clinical findings matched to autopsy results.
RESULTS: The observed mortality rates (13.7%) were 4.2% less than expected by the calculated RISC II probability of survival (mortality rate of 17.9%). The most frequent trauma victims were due to falls >3 m (n = 29), followed by traffic accidents (n = 28). The median ISS was 34, IQR 25, and the median New ISS (NISS) was 50, IQR 32. Locations of death were in emergency department (23.9%), ICU (73.2%), OR and ward (1.4%, respectively). Clinicians classified 47.9% of deaths due to sTBI (n = 34), followed by 9.9% thoracic trauma and multiple organ failure (n = 7), 8.4% multiple trauma (n = 6), and 2.8% hypoxia and exsanguination (n = 2). In 18.3%, cases were unspecific or other causes of death recorded on the death certificates. Evident differences with evident clinical consequences were ascertained in 4% (n = 1) and marginal clinical consequences in 24% (6/25). In 16% (4/25), marginal differences with minor forensic consequences were revealed.
CONCLUSIONS: Even in a supraregional trauma center, specialized in multiple trauma management (4.2% survival benefit), room for improvement exists in more than a quarter of all casualties. This underlines the need for higher autopsy rates to uncover missed injuries and to understand the pathomechanism in each trauma fatality. This would also help to uncover potential insufficiencies in clinical routines with regard to diagnostics. The interdisciplinary cooperation of trauma surgeons and forensic pathologists can increase the quality of trauma patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31933040     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05347-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  30 in total

1.  The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).

Authors:  Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Accuracy of non-contrast PMCT for determining cause of death.

Authors:  Garyfalia Ampanozi; Yannick A Thali; Wolf Schweitzer; Gary M Hatch; Lars C Ebert; Michael J Thali; Thomas D Ruder
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 2.007

3.  Autopsy data in the peer review process improves outcomes analysis.

Authors:  Berni T Martin; William F Fallon; Patrick A Palmieri; Ervin R Tomas; Linda Breedlove
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2007-01

4.  [Recent data for frequency of autopsy in Germany].

Authors:  B Brinkmann; A Du Chesne; B Vennemann
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2002-04-12       Impact factor: 0.628

5.  Identifying preventable trauma death: does autopsy serve a role in the peer review process?

Authors:  Dane Scantling; Amanda Teichman; Robert Kucejko; Brendan McCracken; James Eakins; Richard Burns
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 2.192

6.  Deaths at a Level 1 Trauma Unit: a clinical finding and post-mortem correlation study.

Authors:  David Steinwall; Fabian Befrits; Steve R Naidoo; Timothy Hardcastle; Anders Eriksson; David J J Muckart
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 2.586

7.  Clinical diagnosis versus autopsy findings in polytrauma fatalities.

Authors:  Claas T Buschmann; Patrick Gahr; Michael Tsokos; Wolfgang Ertel; Johannes K Fakler
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  How to define severely injured patients? -- an Injury Severity Score (ISS) based approach alone is not sufficient.

Authors:  Thomas Paffrath; Rolf Lefering; Sascha Flohé
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 9.  Patterns of mortality and causes of death in polytrauma patients--has anything changed?

Authors:  Roman Pfeifer; Ivan S Tarkin; Brett Rocos; Hans-Christoph Pape
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 2.586

10.  Detection of blood aspiration in deadly head gunshots comparing postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) and autopsy.

Authors:  E Scaparra; O Peschel; C Kirchhoff; M Reiser; S M Kirchhoff
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 2.175

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.