Road traffic accident-related thoracic trauma: Epidemiology, injury pattern, outcome, and impact on mortality-A multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic trauma is a major cause of death in trauma patients and road traffic accident (RTA)-related thoracic injuries have different characteristics than those with non-RTA related thoracic traumas, but this have been poorly described. The main objective was to investigate the epidemiology, injury pattern and outcome of patients suffering a significant RTA-related thoracic injury. Secondary objective was to investigate the influence of serious thoracic injuries on mortality, compared to other serious injuries.
METHODS: We performed a multicenter observational study including patients of the Rhône RTA registry between 1997 and 2016 sustaining a moderate to lethal (Abbreviated Injury Scale, AIS≥2) injury in any body region. A subgroup (AISThorax≥2 group) included those with one or more AIS≥2 thoracic injury. Descriptive statistics were performed for the main outcome and a multivariate logistic regression was computed for our secondary outcome.
RESULTS: A total of 176,346 patients were included in the registry and 6,382 (3.6%) sustained a thoracic injury. Among those, median age [IQR] was 41 [25-58] years, and 68.9% were male. The highest incidence of thoracic injuries in female patients was in the 70-79 years age group, while this was observed in the 20-29 years age group among males. Most patients were car occupants (52.3%). Chest wall injuries were the most frequent thoracic injuries (62.1%), 52.4% of which were multiple rib fractures. Trauma brain injuries (TBI) were the most frequent concomitant injuries (29.1%). The frequency of MAISThorax = 2 injuries increased with age while that of MAISThorax = 3 injuries decreased. A total of 16.2% patients died. Serious (AIS≥3) thoracic injuries (OR = 12.4, 95%CI [8.6;18.0]) were strongly associated with mortality but less than were TBI (OR = 27.9, 95%CI [21.3;36.7]).
CONCLUSION: Moderate to lethal RTA-related thoracic injuries were rare. Multiple ribs fractures, pulmonary contusions, and sternal fractures were the most frequent anatomical injuries. The incidence, injury pattern and mechanisms greatly vary across age groups.

Introduction

In the year 2000, road traffic accidents (RTA) were the tenth leading cause of death in the world, the eighth in 2016, and could become the fifth by 2030 according to the World Health Organization [1, 2]. Victims of RTA often suffer multi-trauma and present with thoracic injuries in about 50% cases [3-5]. Furthermore, thoracic trauma are the third most common cause of death in multi-trauma patients [6] and are associated with poor short-term outcomes as they are responsible for up to 25% of trauma-related deaths [7, 8]. Therefore, thoracic traumas represent a major medical and economic problem, and providing care for those patients is challenging. Some risk factors of mortality following thoracic trauma have already been identified, including of the presence of specific structural damages to the chest wall and thoracic organs [8-10] and many studies have shown that thoracic injuries significantly contribute to the mortality of multi-trauma patients, in adults as well as in the paediatric population [11-13]. Furthermore, recent literature has shown that patients with RTA-related thoracic injuries had different clinical characteristics than those with non-RTA related thoracic traumas [5]. However, the literature on the epidemiology, injury pattern and outcome of patients with thoracic trauma following a road traffic accident is still scant.

The main objective of this study was to investigate the epidemiology, injury pattern and outcome of patients suffering one or more RTA-related thoracic injury. Secondary objective was to investigate the influence of serious thoracic injuries on traumatic mortality compared to other types of serious injuries.

Methods

Study design and setting

We conducted a retrospective study that included patients who sustained a RTA between January 1997 and December 2016.

We used prospectively recorded data from the Rhône RTA registry (Registre des victimes d’accidents de la circulation du Rhône), which was implemented in 1995. This registry covers the Rhône area of France (1.83 million inhabitants, 676 inhabitants/km2) and its use is approved by the relevant national authorities (Comité National des Registres, CNR) and data protection agency and (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, CNIL; N° 999211).

The registry includes the demographic characteristics of each RTA casualty and a description of the sustained body injuries. Patient information is collected prospectively during three consecutive time periods from the accident site to hospital discharge: prehospital scene, emergency room or intensive care unit (ICU), and discharge. The registry team supervises the verification of the data from different sources about the same accident or victim, coding, storage and filing, and statistical analysis. Each injury is coded according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale, a severity score, ranging from 1 (minor) to 6 (beyond treatment) [14]; between 1996 and 2014, the 1990 AIS version was used and the 2005 AIS version was used for 2015 and 2016. The injury severity score (ISS) is calculated from the three worst-affected body regions as the sum of squares of the respective AIS severity levels. The full data collection method has been previously described [15].

Study population

Patients are included in the registry if they sustained a RTA involving at least one vehicle (motorised or not) in the Rhône area, which required institutional healthcare from one of the 245 private and public healthcare structures (including level I, II and III trauma centers) cooperating together, including prehospital primary care teams and forensic medicine institutes.

All patients included in the registry with one or more AIS≥2 injury in any body region (AIS≥2 group) were considered in our analyses.

Measures

Several variables were extracted and analysed: patient characteristics (sex, age, road user category), road network, anatomical injuries, severity score (AIS and ISS), and outcome (ICU admission and mortality). As victims could suffer from several injuries in each body region, the maximum AIS (MAIS) was scored using the injury of the highest severity.

Main outcome measure

The main outcome of our study is RTA-related thoracic injury. We have defined a subgroup of patients in the registry (AISThorax≥2), which included all patients with one or more thoracic injury (AIS≥2).

Secondary outcome measure

Death, our secondary outcome, is medically certified either at the scene or noted in medical charts during hospital stay. An autopsy is systematically undertaken in patients dying in the prehospital setting to confirm cause of death and to provide a complete injury assessment based on AIS scoring.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The registry has been approved by the relevant French authority and national data protection commission (Comité National des Registres, CNR, and Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, CNIL, N° 999211). Patients, or parents/guardians received information about inclusion in the registry but the need for consent was waived. All data were fully anonymized before analysis.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were described by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, and medians and interquartile range [IQR] for continuous variables. We compared the groups using the Pearson Chi2 test for categorical variables. We performed a multivariate logistic regression based on complete cases for our secondary outcome (mortality). The model was built using the following covariates: age, sex, global severity (ISS), road user, road network, year of inclusion. Significant prognostic variables at 5% significance on the univariate analysis were included in analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for each risk factor investigated was calculated as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Missing data were not imputed Statistical analyses were performed using SAS (Statistical Analysis System v9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). In all analyses, p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Patient and injury characteristics

Over the study period, a total of 176,346 RTA victims were included in the registry; 46,526 (26.4%) had at least one moderate to lethal injury (AIS≥2 group) and 6,382 (3.6%) had at least one thoracic injury AISThorax≥2 (AISThorax≥2 group). Between the first period (1997–2001) to the last one (2012–2016), we noted a 38.7% decrease of patients included in the AIS≥2 group while this was of 23.6% in the group of patients with a thoracic trauma.

In the AISThorax≥2 group, the median [IQR] age was 41 years [25-58], and 4,400 (68.9%) patients were male. Most of patients were car occupants (52.3%, n = 3,337) and motorcyclists (25.3%, n = 1,617). In most cases (52.7%), the RTA occurred on a city street (Table 1). The highest incidence of AISThorax≥2 injuries in female patients was in the 70–79 years age group (23.1/100,000 inhabitants), while this was observed in the 20–29 years age group among males (39.1/100,000 inhabitants; Fig 1). The distribution of road user by age group is reported in the Fig 2.

Table 1

Demographics and mechanism.

	AIS≥2 group	AISThorax≥2 group
	(n = 46,526)	(n = 6,382)
	n (%)	n (%)
Year of inclusion
1997–2001	14,771 (31.7)	1,896 (29.7)
2002–2006	12,249 (26.3)	1,576 (24.7)
2007–2011	10,458 (22.5)	1,462 (22.9)
2012–2016	9,048 (19.5)	1,448 (22.7)
Agea, years median [IQR]	28 [18–45]	41 [25–58]
Sexb
Male	33,738 (72.5)	4,400 (68.9)
Female	12,778 (27.4)	1,982 (31.1)
Road user
Car occupant	12,739 (27.4)	3,337 (52.3)
Pedestrian	6,011 (12.9)	677 (10.6)
Bicyclist	8,783 (18.9)	439 (6.9)
Motorcyclist	14,497 (31.2)	1,617 (25.3)
Other	4,496 (9.6)	312 (4.9)
Road network
City street	26,238 (56.4)	3,361 (52.7)
Highway	3,006 (6.5)	723 (11.3)
Rural road	5,745 (12.3)	1,497 (23.4)
Other	11,537 (24.8)	801 (12.6)

a45 missing data

b10 missing data

AIS ≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one injury AIS≥2.

AISThorax≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one thoracic injury AIS≥2.

AIS: abbreviated injury scale.

Fig 1

Road traffic accident among the AISThorax≥2 group per 100,000 inhabitants in the Rhône area population.

Subgroups according to the age. AISThorax≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one thoracic injury AIS≥2.AIS: abbreviated injury scale.

Fig 2

Road user category distribution among the AISThorax≥2 group.

Subgroups according to the age. AISThorax≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one thoracic injury AIS≥2. AIS: abbreviated injury scale. MAIS: maximum abbreviated injury scale.

Injury pattern

A total of 8,729 thoracic injuries were reported (some patients may have sustained multiple thoracic injuries). Of these, chest wall injuries were the most frequent (62.1%, n = 5,419), over half of which were multiple rib fractures (52.4%). Lung injuries were the second most frequent type of thoracic injuries (24.7%, n = 2,158), 88.7% of which were lung contusions. Pleural injuries (including pneumothorax and haemothorax) were found in 5.3% (n = 466) of cases (Table 2). The frequency of MAISThorax = 2 injuries increased with age while that of MAISThorax = 3 injuries decreased (Fig 3). The most frequent concomitant AIS≥2 extra-thoracic injuries affected the head (29.1%), upper extremities (26.8%) and lower extremities (25.8%) The head (19.9%) was the most serious (AIS≥3) concomitant body area injured (Table 3).

Table 2

Description of thoracic injuries in the AISThorax≥2 group.

Injury characteristicsa	n (%)
Chest wall injuries	5,419/8,729 (62.1)
Multiple rib fracture	2,842/5,419 (52.4)
Sternal fracture	1,719/5,419 (31.7)
Flail chest	478/5,419 (8.8)
Single rib fracture	276/5,419 (5.1)
Other	104/5,419 (2)
Lung injuries	2,158/8,729 (24.7)
Pulmonary contusion	1,914/2,158 (88.7)
Pulmonary laceration	244/2,158 (11.3)
Pleural and mediastinal injuries	466/8,729 (5.3)
Pneumo and/or haemothorax	352/466 (75.5)
Pneumo and/or haemomediastinum	105/466 (22.5)
Other	9/466 (2)
Cardiac or vascular injuries	421/8,729 (4.8)
Cardiac	227/421 (54)
Thoracic aorta	120/421 (28.5)
Pulmonary arteries/veins	46/421 (11)
Coronary artery	12/421 (2.9)
Subclavian artery/vein	10/421 (2.4)
Other	5/421 (1.2)
Other injuries	265/8,729 (3)
Skin injuries	151/265 (57)
Diaphragmatic injuries	83/265 (31.3)
Tracheal and bronchial injuries	21/265 (7.9)
Oesophageal injuries	10/265 (3.8)

aNo missing data

One patient could have suffered from multiple thoracic injuries, therefore the total of injuries (n = 8,729) presented in the table is greater than the number of AISThorax≥2 patients (n = 6,382).

AISThorax≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one thoracic injury AIS≥2.

AIS: abbreviated injury scale.

Fig 3

Thoracic MAIS distribution among the AISThorax≥2 group.

Subgroups according to the age. AISThorax≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one thoracic injury AIS≥2. AIS: abbreviated injury scale. MAIS: maximum abbreviated injury scale.

Table 3

Concomitant extra-thoracic injuries between AISThorax≥2 group and AISThorax<2 group.

Body regiona	AIS≥2 group	AISThorax≥2 group
	(n = 46,526)	(n = 6,382)
Head	n (%)	n (%)
AIS≥2	12,096 (26)	1,855 (29.1)
AIS≥3	3,162 (6.8)	1,268 (19.9)
Face
AIS≥2	2,181 (4.7)	477 (7.5)
AIS≥3	186 (0.4)	93 (1.5)
Neck
AIS≥2	132 (0.3)	68 (1.1)
AIS≥3	59 (0.1)	33 (0.3)
Abdomen/pelvis
AIS≥2	2,087 (4.5)	1,143 (17.9)
AIS≥3	1,005 (2.2)	604 (9.5)
Spine
AIS≥2	3,438 (7.4)	1039 (16.3)
AIS≥3	731 (1.6)	322 (5.0)
Upper extremity
AIS≥2	19,038 (40.9)	1,713 (26.8)
AIS≥3	3,363 (7.2)	454 (7.1)
Lower extremity
AIS≥2	15,198 (32.7)	1,646 (25.8)
AIS≥3	5,032 (10.8)	987 (15.5)
Skin
AIS≥2	69 (0.1)	5 (0.08)
AIS≥3	42 (0.09)	2 (0.03)

aNo missing data

AIS≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one injury AIS≥2.

AISThorax≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one thoracic injury AIS≥2.

AIS: abbreviated injury scale.

Severity and mortality

The median ISS [IQR]was 14 [6-27]. A total of 30.8% (n = 1,968) thoracic trauma patients were admitted to an ICU, and 16.2% (n = 1,031) patients died (respectively 17.4%, 16.6%, 16.8%, 13.5% of included patients by time-period as described in Table 1). Of those, 61.5% (n = 634) died on-scene. Among those admitted to hospital (n = 397), 37.3% (n = 148) died during the first 24 hours, and 75.6% (n = 300) died within the first three days. Thoracic injuries were the cause of death for 42.7% (n = 440) of our 1,031 deceased patients. Pedestrians had the highest mortality proportion (30.6%, n = 207), followed by motorcyclists (17.6%, n = 285), car occupants (13.6%, n = 455) and cyclists (10.5%, n = 46). A total of 1.4% (n = 36) MAISThorax = 2 patients died while 7.9% (n = 164) with MAISThorax = 3 died, and 47.3% (n = 831/1757) patients with MAISThorax ≥4 died.

Impact of thoracic trauma on mortality and other factors associated with mortality

We investigated the influence of serious (AIS ≥ 3) thoracic injuries on traumatic mortality compared to other serious injuries. Our multivariate analysis revealed that patients with serious traumatic brain injuries were associated with a higher risk of death (OR = 27.9, 95%CI [21.3–36.7]) than those with serious thoracic injuries (OR = 12.4, 95%CI [8.6–18.0]).

Other factors associated with mortality in the AIS≥2 group were all age groups above 39 years compared to 20–39 years group, male sex (OR = 1.4, 95%CI [1.2–1.7]), RTA occurring in a highway (OR = 1.8, 95%CI [1.5–2.3]) or a rural road (OR = 1.8, 95%CI [1.5–2.1]) compared to those in a city street (Table 4).

Table 4

Predictors of mortality in multivariate analysis in AIS≥2 group.

	OR [95%CI]
Body region a
Head	27.9 [21.3–36.7]
Face	11.5 [7.3–18.2]
Neck	2.4 [0.8–6.8]
Thorax	12.4 [8.6–18.0]
Abdomen and pelvis	10.8 [7.5–15.4]
Spine	3.4 [2.4–4.7]
Upper extremity	2.7 [2.1–3.5]
Lower extremity	5.2 [4.1–6.5]
Age, years
0–9	0.5 [0.3–0.8]
10–19	0.7 [0.5–0.8]
20–39	1
40–59	1.3 [1.1–1.6]
60–79	2.1 [1.7–2.6]
≥ 80	6.1 [4.6–8.0]
Sex, male	1.4 [1.2–1.7]
Road user
Car occupants	1
Pedestrians	1.1 [0.9–1.4]
Bicyclists	0.4 [0.3–0.6]
Motorcyclists	0.8 [0.7–1.0]
Other	0.8 [0.6–1.1]
Road network
City street	1
Highway	1.8 [1.5–2.3]
Rural road	1.8 [1.5–2.1]
Other	0.5 [0.4–0.6]
Year of inclusion	0.95 [0.94–0.96]

a Impact of a MAIS ≥3 injury compared to a MAIS = 2 injury in the same body region

AIS≥2 group: trauma patients presenting with at least one injury AIS≥2, MAIS: Maximum abbreviated injury scale. p<0.001 for all variables.

Discussion

The results of our study show that moderate to lethal RTA-related thoracic injuries were surprisingly rare, affecting less than four out of every 100 patients, and most frequently occurred in middle-aged male patients.

We have found a lower incidence of thoracic trauma compared to the numbers previously reported [10, 16, 17]. Peek et al. recently reported that single rib fracture accounted for 20% of rib fracture cases [18, 19]. This difference may be explained by the fact that we chose not to include these patients. Indeed, we did not include minor injuries because previous studies have demonstrated that these single rib fractures were not associated with mortality [10]. Another explanation could be that the present study may suffer a measurement bias in the late 90’s and early 2000s because some patient may have undergone a traditional selected CT scan that did not explore the thorax. The recent democratization of whole body computed tomography (WBCT) which became standard practice in many centers over the world in the last two decades resulted in more diagnosed injuries [20]. Another interesting finding of the present study is the evolution of AISThorax 2 and 3 with age. Children aged between 0 and 9 years had the highest incidence of AIS 3 injuries, and this decreased with age. This finding is similar to Samarasekera et al.’s, as they reported a very high incidence of AIS>2 thoracic injuries (88%) among children aged under 15years, 65% of which being lung contusions. The more compressible and incompletely calcified thoracic skeleton of children, which allows the transmission of large forces to the thoracic cavity structures, making rib fractures uncommon, may partially explain this. Thus, high-energy impact trauma may cause major internal injuries with little evidence of external injuries or fractures of the bony thorax as reported by many authors [12, 21, 22]. Furthermore, since children are more frequently involved in RTA as pedestrians, they may be at higher risk of projection and severe trauma as a result of a direct impact with the front bumper because of their height. In contrast, the incidence of moderate (AIS = 2) thoracic injuries increased with age. These injuries are mainly rib fractures. which, in older patients, were reported to be a frequent consequence of a RTA [23]. With muscle atrophy and osteoporosis, which are commonly associated with older age, less force may be required to cause rib fractures in this population. Herein, mortality was similar to that reported by several authors [7, 10, 24]. Other studies showed lower mortality rates (5% and 5.5%) [13, 25] but these only included patients reaching the hospital with vital signs, whereas on-scene dead patients were not excluded from our analyses. Had these patients been excluded, our mortality rate would have been 6.2%. Similarly to other authors [10], we have found serious thoracic trauma were also strongly associated with patient mortality, as three-quarters serious thoracic trauma-related deaths occurred within the first 24 hours. This contradicts Grubmüller et al.’s results, which found no association between the presence of serious thoracic trauma and mortality [24]. This may be explained by the potential limited external validity of their results, as their study included patients from a single high-volume level-I trauma center. It was indeed suggested in the literature that the hospital volume of severely injured patients may be an independent predictor of survival [26, 27]. In addition to the fact that our study included data from multiple centers with different levels of trauma care designation, their population is different than ours as they excluded patients with penetrating trauma and those in whom resuscitation efforts outside the hospital have failed.

One major strength of the present study was the inclusion of on-scene deceased patients without inducing any misclassification bias because an autopsy was systematically undertaken in those patients to confirm the cause of death and provide a complete injury assessment based on AIS scoring. Furthermore, our large multicenters cohort which includes consecutive patients from the past 20 years is a non-negligeable strength.

This study has several limitations, including the update of AIS during the study period [28]. Nevertheless, we chose to base severity assessment on the widely used AIS because it is an accurate, objective and validated method to independently evaluate the impact of each body region on mortality [29]. Besides, Hsu et al. [30] found that the AIS update had no impact on mean ISS when considering the thoracic body region. Furthermore, our retrospective study design, with its known weaknesses, may be considered a limit. However, the present study is based on prospectively collected multicenters data over a 20-year-period including level I to III trauma centers and included patients of all ages whereas many studies focused on thoracic trauma are single center studies and only included patients ≥16 years [7, 9, 13, 16, 24, 31]. Also, our secondary outcome relies on an anatomic system of injury classification (AIS and ISS) since the database does not report physiological assessment nor medical management. Therefore, there is no data regarding prehospital management, time to surgery, ICU management such as airway and ventilation management, use of vasopressors or massive blood transfusion, and no detail on organ and respiratory failure or pre-existing chronic comorbid diseases which have been reported to influence outcome in thoracic trauma patients [8–10, 24]. The value of anatomic scoring systems in outcome prediction of trauma patients has been debated and compared to physiological scores. Some authors found the ISS to be a better severity predictor than the revised Trauma Scale (RTS) and the simplified acute physiology scale II (SAPS II) [32]. Hence, we believe that using anatomic scoring in the present study is as efficient as physiological scoring in predicting outcomes. At last, we included patients prior to the adoption of WBCT which may have contributed to underreporting of some injuries such as pulmonary contusions and rib fractures.

Conclusion

Moderate to lethal RTA-related thoracic injuries were rare. Multiple ribs fractures, pulmonary contusions, and sternal fractures were the most frequent anatomical injuries. The incidence, injury pattern and mechanisms greatly vary across age groups.

24 Feb 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Belinda J Gabbe, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on this interesting manuscript by Benhamed, et al., entitled, “Road traffic accident-related thoracic trauma: epidemiology, injury pattern, outcome, and impact on mortality – a multicenter observational study from 1997 to 2016.” This is a retrospective, cohort study using data from the Rhone RTA registry, aimed at describing patient characteristics, injury patterns, and outcome among patients with one or more thoracic injuries sustained in an RTA during a 20-year interval. They find that RTA-related thoracic injuries were rare (3.6%) and injury patterns and mechanisms varied by age group.

1. The manuscript is organized and the prose is clearly written. Overall, the authors have done a fine job of describing the cohort and identifying trends in the data, particularly with regard to age. However, I think much more can be accomplished with the data they already have in hand.

The authors need to take the element of time into consideration given the 20-year span of the dataset. Trauma care has changed substantially over the 20 years of the study. At the very least, year of injury could be included in the regression models as random parameters. One could go so far as comparing standardized survival ratios over time. However, this is completely at the authors’ discretion. Nonetheless, the matter of time needs to be acknowledged as a variable in Table 1 and included in the results, as appropriate.

2. The authors give a good description of the limitations of the Rhone RTA registry. Is there information regarding chronic comorbid diseases in the Rhone RTA registry? If such data are available, inclusion in the analyses would be instructive. If not, fine.

3. How was missing data handled? Was there any missing data? Some mention of missingness would be useful to readers.

4. The description of the logistic model fitting process is appreciated. Could the authors please include the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to convey the discrimination of the model?

5. The figures are clearly presented and are very instructive. Well done.

Minor point:

1. The third sentence of the introduction, line 80, “Furthermore…” needs to be clarified. The phrases “third most common cause of death…” and “up to 25% of trauma-related deaths” need to be reconciled somehow.

Thank you for your kind consideration of my comments and questions. I look forward to your replies and revisions.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to read this well written, descriptive analysis of road crash related thoracic trauma from the Rhone region.

However, the authors have indicated 2 significant flaws in the paper.

The first is the inclusion of subjects prior to the adoption of whole body CT scanning. The diagnoses of rib fractures and pulmonary injuries - for example - can be considered under-reported.

Secondly , road crash fatalities rates had reduced by 50% in developed systems during the reporting period (1997-2018), yet the cohort is presented as a uniform population (see, for example, https://www.statista.com/statistics/437904/number-of-road-deaths-in-france/ accessed 21Feb2022).

Both these factors make interpreting the data difficult.

Would the authors consider:

1. Including more contemporaneous data (e.g. 1997-2021)?

2. Analysing the incidence of diagnoses as well as the changes in mortality and outcomes over time?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alan Cook, MD, MS, FACS

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mark C Fitzgerald

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Apr 2022

We would like to truly thank all the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, which we believe will greatly improve the quality of our work.

Please find attached with the revision documents a point-by-point response to it.

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Submitted filename: response to reviewing TTF.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Apr 2022

20 Apr 2022

We would like to thank all the reviewers for their comments.

Only one comment has been raised on point 6 “review comments to the author: One final comment - you conclude 'Significant RTA-related thoracic injuries were rare' - but I think you mean 'Major cardiac, vascular, tracheobronchial and oesophageal injuries were rare...'?”

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Response to the reviewer:

Thank you for this comment. This has been rephrased to be more precise. Indeed, <5% of our population sustained a moderate to lethal thoracic injury, we therefore concluded that these injuries were rare.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Apr 2022

Road traffic accident-related thoracic trauma: epidemiology, injury pattern, outcome, and impact on mortality – a multicenter observational study

PONE-D-22-02469R2

Dear Dr. BENHAMED,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

28 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-02469R2

Road traffic accident-related thoracic trauma: epidemiology, injury pattern, outcome, and impact on mortality – a multicenter observational study

Dear Dr. Benhamed:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sergio A. Useche

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE