The objective of this study was to describe a population of children admitted to a tertiary care pediatric hospital with severe trauma to identify key areas for injury prevention research, and programming.
Retrospective chart review conducted on all children 0-17 years admitted to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) between April 1, 1996, and March 31, 2000, following acute trauma. Each record was reviewed and assigned an ISS using the AIS 1990 revision. All cases with an ISS > 11 were included in the study.
There were 2610 trauma cases admitted to CHEO over the study period. Of these, 237 (9.1%) had severe trauma (ISS > 11). Sixty-two percent were male. Twenty-nine percent were between the ages of 10 and 14 years, 27% between 5 and 9 years, 16% between 15 and 17 years, 15% between 1 and 4 years, and 13% less than 1 year old. The most common mechanisms of injury were due to motor vehicle traffic (39%), falls (24%), child abuse (8%), and sports (5%). Of those resulting from motor vehicle traffic, 53 (57%) were occupants, 22 (24%) were pedestrians, and 18 (19%) were cyclists. When combining traffic and nontraffic mechanisms, 26 (11% of all severe trauma cases) occurred as a result of cycling incidents. The most severe injury in 65% of patients was to the head and neck body region.
Research efforts and activities to prevent severe pediatric trauma in our region should focus on road safety, protection from head injuries, avoidance of falls, and prevention of child abuse.
Great experience with treatment and a comprehensive investigation of the severe combined trauma allowed the authors to choose six basic principles to be followed in diagnosing and treatment of this surgical pathology whose peculiarity is the phenomenon of mutual aggravation of the injuries. Following these principles, especially at surgical hospitals, promotes complete diagnosing, choice of the rational treatment policy in order to avoid medical errors and severe posttraumatic and postshock complications and to improve the outcomes. The authors prove expediency of organization of the multifield specialized centers for treatment of patients with the severe combined traumas.
To examine the annual incidence of acute whiplash injuries after road traffic crashes in a geographic catchment area in Northern Sweden during the period 2000-2009.
Descriptive epidemiology determined by prospectively collected data from a defined population.
The study was conducted at a public hospital in Sweden.
The population of the hospital's catchment area (136,600 inhabitants in 1999 and 144,500 in 2009).
At the emergency department, all injured persons (approximately 11,000 per year) were asked to answer a questionnaire about the injury incident. Data from the medical records also were analyzed. From 2000-2009, 15,506 persons were injured in vehicle crashes. Persons who were subject to an acute neck injury within whiplash-associated disorder grades 1-3 were included. The overall and annual incidences were calculated as incidence. Age, gender, type of injury event, and direction of impact were described. The incidences were compared with national statistics on insurance claims from 2003, 2007, and 2008 to detect changes in the proportions of claims.
The annual incidence of acute whiplash injuries. Secondary outcome measures were types of injury events, age and gender distribution, changes in the proportion of rear-end crashes during 2000-2009, and changes in the proportion of insurance claims during 2003-2008.
During 2000-2009, 3297 cases of acute whiplash injury were encountered. The overall incidence was 235/100,000/year. The average yearly increase in incidence was 1.0%. Women comprised 51.9% and men 48.1% of the injured. Car occupants (86.4%) and bicycle riders (6.1%) were most frequently injured. The proportion of rear-end crashes decreased from 55% to 45% from 2000-2009. The proportion of insurance claims significantly decreased between 2003 and 2008 (P
Injury severity is most frequently classified using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) as a basis for the Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), which are used for assessment of overall injury severity in the multiply injured patient and in outcome prediction. European trauma registries recommended the AIS 2008 edition, but the levels of inter-rater agreement and reliability of ISS and NISS, associated with its use, have not been reported.
Nineteen Norwegian AIS-certified trauma registry coders were invited to score 50 real, anonymised patient medical records using AIS 2008. Rater agreements for ISS and NISS were analysed using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). A clinically acceptable LoA range was set at ± 9 units. Reliability was analysed using a two-way mixed model intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and hierarchical agglomerative clustering.
Ten coders submitted their coding results. Of their AIS codes, 2189 (61.5%) agreed with a reference standard, 1187 (31.1%) real injuries were missed, and 392 non-existing injuries were recorded. All LoAs were wider than the predefined, clinically acceptable limit of ± 9, for both ISS and NISS. The joint ICC (range) between each rater and the reference standard was 0.51 (0.29,0.86) for ISS and 0.51 (0.27,0.78) for NISS. The joint ICC (range) for inter-rater reliability was 0.49 (0.19,0.85) for ISS and 0.49 (0.16,0.82) for NISS. Univariate linear regression analyses indicated a significant relationship between the number of correctly AIS-coded injuries and total number of cases coded during the rater's career, but no significant relationship between the rater-against-reference ISS and NISS ICC values and total number of cases coded during the rater's career.
Based on AIS 2008, ISS and NISS were not reliable for summarising anatomic injury severity in this study. This result indicates a limitation in their use as benchmarking tools for trauma system performance.
Abdominal injuries occur relatively infrequently during trauma, and they rarely require surgical intervention. In this era of non-operative management of abdominal injuries, surgeons are seldom exposed to these patients. Consequently, surgeons may misinterpret the mechanism of injury, underestimate symptoms and radiologic findings, and delay definite treatment. Here, we determined the incidence, diagnosis, and treatment of traumatic abdominal injuries at our hospital to provide a basis for identifying potential hazards in non-operative management of patients with these injuries in a low trauma volume hospital.
This retrospective study included prehospital and in-hospital assessments of 110 patients that received 147 abdominal injuries from an isolated abdominal trauma (n = 70 patients) or during multiple trauma (n = 40 patients). Patients were primarily treated at the University Hospital of Umeå from January 2000 to December 2009.
The median New Injury Severity Score was 9 (range: 1-57) for 147 abdominal injuries. Most patients (94%) received computed tomography (CT), but only 38% of patients with multiple trauma were diagnosed with CT
Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity, potential years of life lost and health care expenditure in Canada and around the world. Trauma systems have been established across North America to provide comprehensive injury care and to lead injury control efforts. We sought to describe the current status of trauma systems in Canada and Canadians' access to acute, multidisciplinary trauma care.
A national survey was used to identify the locations and capabilities of adult trauma centers across Canada and to identify the catchment populations they serve. Geographic information science methods were used to map the locations of Level I and Level II trauma centers and to define 1-hour road travel times around each trauma center. Data from the 2006 Canadian Census were used to estimate populations within and outside 1-hour access to definitive trauma care.
In Canada, 32 Level I and Level II trauma centers provide definitive trauma care and coordinate the efforts of their surrounding trauma systems. Most Canadians (77.5%) reside within 1-hour road travel catchments of Level I or Level II centers. However, marked geographic disparities in access persist. Of the 22.5% of Canadians who live more than an hour away from a Level I or Level II trauma centers, all are in rural and remote regions.
Access to high quality acute trauma care is well established across parts of Canada but a clear urban/rural divide persists. Regional efforts to improve short- and long-term outcomes after severe trauma should focus on the optimization of access to pre-hospital care and acute trauma care in rural communities using locally relevant strategies or novel care delivery options.
Trauma from motor vehicle accidents is a major health-care problem, resulting in enormous economic losses to the country, and is second only to heart disease as a reason for hospitalization in Canada. Funding fro research and accident-injury programs is critically low. National and provincial trauma registries must be developed to provide data that can be used appropriately to plan and monitor the strategy of accident health-care and prevention programs. Manitoba, which has in place a trauma registry, has a province-wide trauma system comprising two comprehensive trauma units and seven regional centres located strategically in the catchment areas of the major centres. A comparison of the performance of this system with that of hospitals in Baltimore has shown that the Manitoba system provides an equal level of care. The author recommends that a trauma system be established that a trauma system be established in regions of one to two million population. Each region should have one to three comprehensive trauma services and a number of regional trauma services, each strategically located. With appropriate funding for trauma care, the proposed system would pay for itself.