Search

Goal: To provide healthcare professionals with comprehensive multidisciplinary expert recommendations for the acute care of severe limb trauma patients, both during the prehospital phase and after admission to a Trauma Centre., Design: A consensus committee of 21 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e., pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of the quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. Few recommendations remained non-graded., Methods: The committee addressed eleven questions relevant to the patient suffering severe limb trauma: 1) What are the key findings derived from medical history and clinical examination which lead to the patient's prompt referral to a Level 1 or Level 2 Trauma Centre? 2) What are the medical devices that must be implemented in the prehospital setting to reduce blood loss? 3) Which are the clinical findings prompting the performance of injected X-ray examinations? 4) What are the ideal timing and modalities for performing fracture fixation? 5) What are the clinical and operative findings which steer the surgical approach in case of vascular compromise and/or major musculoskeletal attrition? 6) How to best prevent infection? 7) How to best prevent thromboembolic complications? 8) What is the best strategy to precociously detect and treat limb compartment syndrome? 9) How to best and precociously detect post-traumatic rhabdomyolysis and prevent rhabdomyolysis-induced acute kidney injury? 10) What is the best strategy to reduce the incidence of fat emboli syndrome and post-traumatic systemic inflammatory response? 11) What is the best therapeutic strategy to treat acute trauma-induced pain? Every question was formulated in a PICO (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology., Results: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 19 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 4 had a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 had a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 3 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in an expert advice. After two rounds of scoring and one amendment, strong agreement was reached on all the recommendations., Conclusions: There was significant agreement among experts on strong recommendations to improve practices for severe limb trauma patients., (Copyright © 2021 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To update the French guidelines on the management of trauma patients with spinal cord injury or suspected spinal cord injury., Design: A consensus committee of 27 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised., Methods: The committee studied twelve questions: (1) What are the indications and arrangements for spinal immobilisation? (2) What are the arrangements for pre-hospital orotracheal intubation? (3) What are the objectives of haemodynamic resuscitation during the lesion assessment, and during the first few days in hospital? (4) What is the best way to manage these patients to improve their long-term prognosis? (5) What is the place of corticosteroid therapy in the initial phase? (6) What are the indications for magnetic resonance imaging in the lesion assessment phase? (7) What is the optimal time for surgical management? (8) What are the best arrangements for orotracheal intubation in the hospital environment? (9) What are the specific conditions for weaning these patients from mechanical ventilation for? (10) What are the procedures for analgesic treatment of these patients? (11) What are the specific arrangements for installing and mobilising these patients? (12) What is the place of early intermittent bladder sampling in these patients? Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® Methodology., Results: The experts' work synthesis and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 19 recommendations. Among the recommendations formalised, 2 have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 5 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert advice. After two rounds of scoring and one amendment, strong agreement was reached on all the recommendations., Conclusions: There was significant agreement among experts on strong recommendations to improve practices for the management of patients with spinal cord injury., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is considered an important public health issue but its incidence has not been examined in France. The aim of this study is to define the incidence of OHCA in France and to compare this to other neighbouring countries. Data were extracted from the French OHCA registry. Only exhaustive centres during the period from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014 were included. All patients were included, regardless of their age and cause of OHCA. The participating centres covered about 10% of the French population. The study involved 6918 OHCA. The median age was 68 years, with 63% of males. Paediatric population (<15years) represented 1.8%. The global incidence of OHCA was 61.5 per 100,000 inhabitants per year in the total population corresponding to approximately 46,000 OHCA per year. In the adult population, we found an incidence of 75.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. In adults, the incidences were 100.3 and 52.7 in males and females, respectively. Most (75%) OHCA occurred at home and were due to medical causes (88%). Half of medical OHCA had cardiovascular causes. Survival rates at 30 days was 4.9% [4.4; 5.4] and increased to 10.4% [9.1; 11.7] when resuscitation was immediately performed by bystander at patient's collapse. The incidence and survival at 30 days of OHCA in France appeared similar to that reported in other European countries. Compared to other causes of deaths in France, OHCA is one of the most frequent causes, regardless of the initial pathology., (Copyright © 2018 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

In this road map for trauma in France, we focus on the main challenges for system implementation, surgical and radiology training and upon innovative training techniques. Regarding system organisation: procedures for triage, designation and certification of trauma centres are mandatory to implement trauma networks on a national scale. Data collection with registries must be created, with a core dataset defined and applied through all registries. Regarding surgical and radiology training, diagnostic-imaging processes should be standardised and the role of the interventional radiologist within the trauma team and the trauma network should be clearly defined. Education in surgery for trauma is crucial and recent changes in medical training in France will promote trauma surgery as a specific sub-specialty. Innovative training techniques should be implemented and be based on common objectives, scenarios and evaluation, so as to improve individual and team performances. The group formulated 14 proposals that should help to structure and improve major trauma management in France over the next 10 years., (Copyright © 2018 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The latest French Guidelines for the management in the first 24hours of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) were published in 1998. Due to recent changes (intracerebral monitoring, cerebral perfusion pressure management, treatment of raised intracranial pressure), an update was required. Our objective has been to specify the significant developments since 1998. These guidelines were conducted by a group of experts for the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société francaise d'anesthésie et de réanimation [SFAR]) in partnership with the Association de neuro-anesthésie-réanimation de langue française (ANARLF), The French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société française de médecine d'urgence (SFMU), the Société française de neurochirurgie (SFN), the Groupe francophone de réanimation et d'urgences pédiatriques (GFRUP) and the Association des anesthésistes-réanimateurs pédiatriques d'expression française (ADARPEF). The method used to elaborate these guidelines was the Grade ® method. After two Delphi rounds, 32 recommendations were formally developed by the experts focusing on the evaluation the initial severity of traumatic brain injury, the modalities of prehospital management, imaging strategies, indications for neurosurgical interventions, sedation and analgesia, indications and modalities of cerebral monitoring, medical management of raised intracranial pressure, management of multiple trauma with severe traumatic brain injury, detection and prevention of post-traumatic epilepsia, biological homeostasis (osmolarity, glycaemia, adrenal axis) and paediatric specificities., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Chest trauma remains an issue for health services for both severe and apparently mild trauma management. Severe chest trauma is associated with high mortality and is considered liable for 25% of mortality in multiple traumas. Moreover, mild trauma is also associated with significant morbidity especially in patients with preexisting conditions. Thus, whatever the severity, a fast-acting strategy must be organized. At this time, there are no guidelines available from scientific societies. These expert recommendations aim to establish guidelines for chest trauma management in both prehospital an in hospital settings, for the first 48hours. The "Société française d'anesthésie réanimation" and the "Société française de médecine d'urgence" worked together on the 7 following questions: (1) criteria defining severity and for appropriate hospital referral; (2) diagnosis strategy in both pre- and in-hospital settings; (3) indications and guidelines for ventilatory support; (4) management of analgesia; (5) indications and guidelines for chest tube placement; (6) surgical and endovascular repair indications in blunt chest trauma; (7) definition, medical and surgical specificity of penetrating chest trauma. For each question, prespecified "crucial" (and sometimes also "important") outcomes were identified by the panel of experts because it mattered for patients. We rated evidence across studies for these specific clinical outcomes. After a systematic Grade ® approach, we defined 60 recommendations. Each recommendation has been evaluated by all the experts according to the DELPHI method., (Copyright © 2017 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published in , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2017.01.003 . The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)