Search

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating pre-hospital triage and decision-making in patients who died post-trauma is crucial to decrease undertriage and improve future patients' chances of survival. A study that has adequately investigated this is currently lacking. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate pre-hospital triage and decision-making in patients who died within 30 days post-trauma.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-site, multi-center, cohort study was conducted. Trauma patients who were transported from the scene of injury to a trauma center by ambulance and died within 30 days post-trauma, were included. The main outcome was undertriage, defined as erroneously transporting a severely injured patient (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16) to a lower-level trauma center.RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, 2116 patients were included, of whom 765 (36.2%) were severely injured. A total of 103 of these patients (13.5%) were undertriaged. Undertriaged patients were often elderly with a severe head and/or thoracic injury as a result of a minor fall (< 2 m). A majority of the undertriaged patients were triaged without assistance of a specialized physician (100 [97.1%]), did not meet field triage criteria for level-I trauma care (81 [78.6%]), and could have been transported to the nearest level-I trauma center within 45 min (93 [90.3%]).CONCLUSION: Approximately 14% of the severely injured patients who died within 30 days were undertriaged and could have benefited from treatment at a level-I trauma center (i.e., specialized trauma care). Improvement of pre-hospital triage is needed to potentially increase future patients' chances of survival.

Introduction Fracture-related infection (FRI) is an important complication following surgical fracture management. Key to successful treatment is an accurate diagnosis. To this end, microbiological identification remains the gold standard. Although a structured approach towards sampling specimens for microbiology seems logical, there is no consensus on a culture protocol for FRI. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a structured microbiology sampling protocol for fracture-related infections compared to ad-hoc culture sampling. Methods We conducted a pre-/post-implementation cohort study that compared the effects of implementation of a structured FRI sampling protocol. The protocol included strict criteria for sampling and interpretation of tissue cultures for microbiology. All intraoperative samples from suspected or confirmed FRI were compared for culture results. Adherence to the protocol was described for the post-implementation cohort. Results In total 101 patients were included, 49 pre-implementation and 52 post-implementation. From these patients 175 intraoperative culture sets were obtained, 96 and 79 pre- and post-implementation respectively. Cultures from the pre-implementation cohort showed significantly more antibiotic use during culture sampling (P = 0.002). The post-implementation cohort showed a tendency more positive culture sets (69% vs. 63%), with a significant difference in open wounds (86% vs. 67%, P = 0.034). In all post-implementation culture sets causative pathogens were cultured more than once per set, in contrast to pre-implementation. Despite stricter tissue sampling and culture interpretation criteria, the number of polymicrobial infections was similar in both cohorts, approximately 29% of all culture sets and 44% of all positive culture sets. Significantly more polymicrobial cultures were found in early infections in the post-implementation cohort (P = 0.048). This indicates a better yield in the new protocol. Conclusion A standardised protocol for intraoperative sampling for bacterial identification in FRI is superior than an ad-hoc approach. It has a positive effect on both surgeon and microbiologist by increasing awareness about the problem at hand. This resulted in more microbiologically confirmed infections and more certainty when identifying causative pathogens.

Adequate foot function is paramount in daily activities, yet the incidence of foot fractures shows a rising trend. Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used for research; however, the use of a wide variety of available instruments is undesirable. In the current study, an overview is provided of patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical research evaluating outcomes of foot fractures. Tools are provided to choose the most adequate instrument in future research.To identify the instruments, a systematic review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles published since 2000, reporting on traumatic foot fractures and/or their posttraumatic sequelae, and using a minimum of one condition- or region-specific patient-reported outcome measure were included. Forty-nine instruments were identified, used 636 times collectively. These instruments were evaluated on frequency of use, bones or joints analyzed with the instruments, the type and amount of contained items, and existing literature on their psychometric properties.The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale was used predominantly (AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale; n = 243, 38.2%), followed by the Maryland Foot Score (n = 90, 14.2%). Twenty-seven instruments were included for further analysis. The majority included questions on mobility (27/27) and pain (24/27). Tools to select an adequate instrument for new research are presented in the appendices.Controversy surrounds the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale as other authors have found that its psychometric properties, indicating it measures what it is supposed to measure adequately, are flawed.A multitude of specific patient-reported outcome measures concerning foot fractures exists. Furthermore, the predominantly used instrument is deemed insufficient regarding quality as found by other studies. A valid, reliable, and responsive patient-reported outcome measure for clinical research on foot fractures is necessary. The most adequate existing ones for future research on different topics can be found through the tools provided.

Background Due to prioritizing care and concomitant injuries, foot fractures in polytrauma patients often receive limited attention initially. However, as foot function is important, treatment and diagnosis of these fractures should be accurate. The aims of this study were to assess the incidence and distribution of foot fractures in polytrauma patients and to examine possible risk factors for delayed diagnosis of foot fractures. Methods This was a retrospective study on all adult (≥18 years) polytrauma (ISS ≥16) patients admitted to a single level 1 trauma center between 2006 and 2016. Patients with foot fractures were identified by diagnosis codes. Data on demographics and trauma characteristics were collected from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP®) database. Data on foot fractures were gathered from electronic patient documentation. Results Out of 4409 polytrauma patients, 221 (5.0%) sustained a total of 511 foot fractures. Metatarsal fractures were most common (41%), followed by calcaneal (17%), and talar (16%) fractures. Thirty percent of the fractures in 33% of all patients were diagnosed in a delayed fashion. This had treatment consequences in 8%. Delayed diagnosed fractures were more common in older patients (p 0.025), patients with a higher ISS (p 0.012), ICU admission (p 0.015), and concomitant head injury (p 0.020). Conclusions As one in twenty polytrauma patients sustains at least one foot fracture and a substantial amount of these fractures are diagnosed in a delayed fashion, physicians, regardless of their specialty, should have a high index of suspicion for injuries of the feet in polytrauma patients.

Introduction In contrast to the emerging evidence on the operative treatment of flail chest, there is a paucity of literature on the surgical treatment of rib fracture nonunion. The purpose of this study was to describe our standardized approach and report the outcome (e.g. patient satisfaction, pain and complications) after surgical treatment of a rib fracture nonunion. Methods A single centre retrospective cohort study was performed at a level 1 trauma centre. Symptomatic rib nonunion was defined as a severe persistent localized pain associated with the nonunion of one or more rib fractures on a chest CT scan at least 3 months after the initial trauma. Patients after initial operative treatment of rib fractures were excluded. Results Nineteen patients (11 men, 8 women), with symptomatic nonunions were included. Fourteen patients were referred from other hospitals and 8 patients received treatment from a pain medicine specialist. The mean follow-up was 36 months. No in-hospital complications were observed. In 2 patients, new fractures adjacent to the implant, without new trauma were observed. Furthermore 3 patients requested implant removal with a persistent nonunion in one patient. There was a mean follow-up of 36 months, the majority of patients (n = 13) were satisfied with the results of their surgical treatment and all patients experienced a reduction in the number of complaints. Persisting pain was a common complaint. Three patients reporting severe pain used opioid analgesics on a daily or weekly basis. Only 1 patient needed ongoing treatment by a pain medicine specialist. Conclusion Surgical fixation of symptomatic rib nonunion is a safe and feasible procedure, with a low perioperative complication rate, and might be beneficial in selected symptomatic patients in the future. In our study, although the majority of patients were satisfied and the pain level subjectively decreases, complaints of persistent pain were common.

Introduction Due to prioritisation in the initial trauma care, non-life threatening injuries can be overlooked or temporally neglected. Polytrauma patients in particular might be at risk for delayed diagnosed injuries (DDI). Studies that solely focus on DDI in polytrauma patients are not available. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze DDI and determine risk factors associated with DDI in polytrauma patients. Methods In this single centre retrospective cohort study, patients were considered polytrauma when the Injury Severity Score was ≥16 as a result of injury in at least 2 body regions. Adult polytrauma patients admitted from 2007 until 2012 were identified. Hospital charts were reviewed to identify DDI. Results 1416 polytrauma patients were analyzed of which 12% had DDI. Most DDI were found during initial hospital admission after tertiary survey (63%). Extremities were the most affected regions for all types of DDI (78%) with the highest intervention rate (35%). Most prevalent DDI were fractures of the hand (54%) and foot (38%). In 2% of all patients a DDI was found after discharge, consisting mainly of injuries other than a fracture. High energy trauma mechanism (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2–2.7), abdominal injury (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1) and extremity injuries found during initial assessment (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.6–3.3) were independent risk factors for DDI. Conclusion In polytrauma patients, most DDI were found during hospital admission but after tertiary survey. This demonstrates that the tertiary survey should be an ongoing process and thus repeated daily in polytrauma patients. Most frequent DDI were extremity injuries, especially injuries of the hand and foot.

Introduction For several extremity fractures differences in morphology, incidence rate and functional outcome were found when polytrauma patients were compared to patients with an isolated injury. This is not proven for distal radius fractures (DRF). Therefore, this study aimed to analyse fracture morphology in relation to energy transfer in both poly- and mono-trauma patients with a DRF. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study. All patients aged 16 years and older with a DRF were included. Patients with an Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher were classified as polytrauma patients. Injuries were defined as high or low energy. All DRFs were classified using the AO/OTA fracture classification system. Results A total of 830 patients with a DRF were included, 12% were polytrauma. The incidence rate of DRF in polytrauma patients was 3.5%. Ipsilateral upper extremity injury was found in >30% of polytrauma and high-energy monotrauma patients, compared to 5% in low-energy monotrauma patients. More type C DRF were found in polytrauma and high-energy monotrauma patients versus low-energy monotrauma patients. Operative intervention rates for all types of DRF were similar for polytrauma and high-energy monotrauma patients. Non-union rates were higher in polytrauma patients. Conclusion Higher energy mechanisms of injury, in polytrauma and high-energy monotrauma patients, were associated with more severe complex articular distal radius fractures and more ipsilateral upper extremity injuries. Polytrauma and high-energy monotrauma patient have a similar fracture morphology. However, polytrauma patients have in addition to more injured body regions also more non-union related interventions than high-energy monotrauma patients.

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) related injuries and exsanguination have been the most common causes of death in trauma for decades. Despite improvements in haemorrhage control in recent years exsanguination is still a major cause of death. We conducted a prospective database study to investigate the current incidence of haemorrhage related mortality. Materials and methods: A prospective database study of all trauma patients admitted to an urban major trauma centre between January 2007 and December 2016 was conducted. All in-hospital trauma deaths were included. Cause of death was reviewed by a panel of trauma surgeons. Patients who were dead on arrival were excluded. Trends in demographics and outcome were analysed per year. Further, 2 time periods (2007–2012 and 2013–2016) were selected representing periods before and after implementation of haemostatic resuscitation and damage control procedures in our hospital to analyse cause of death into detail. Results: 11,553 trauma patients were admitted, 596 patients (5.2%) died. Mean age of deceased patients was 61 years and 61% were male. Mechanism of injury (MOI) was blunt in 98% of cases. Mean ISS was 28 with head injury the most predominant injury (mean AIS head 3.4). There was no statistically significant difference in sex and MOI over time. Even though deceased patients were older in 2016 compared to 2007 (67 vs. 46 years, p < 0.001), mortality was lower in later years (p = 0.02). CNS related injury was the main cause of death in the whole decade; 58% of patients died of CNS in 2007–2012 compared to 76% of patients in 2013–2016 (p = 0.001). In 2007–2012 9% died of exsanguination compared to 3% in 2013–2016 (p = 0.001). Discussion: In this cohort in a major trauma centre death by exsanguination has decreased to 3% of trauma deaths. The proportion of traumatic brain injury has increased over time and has become the most common cause of death in blunt trauma. Besides on-going prevention of brain injury future studies should focus on treatment strategies preventing secondary damage of the brain once the injury has occurred