Search

Background: The Institute of Medicine calls for the use of clinical guidelines and practice parameters to promote "best practices" and improve patient outcomes. In 2006, The Trauma Association of Canada Pediatric Committee set out to create an evidence-based, national pediatric cervical spine (c-spine) clearance guideline based on the literature, existing algorithms from each pediatric trauma center and from expert opinion from across Canada., Methods: A review of the literature took place in September 2006 using the PubMed database. Search criteria were "cervical spine," "c-spine," "clearance," and "trauma." Limits that were applied were "Languages: English," "Humans," "Type of Article: Meta-Analysis, Practice Guidelines, Randomized Control Trial, Review," and "Ages: all child 0-18 years." These search criteria were repeated in December 2007, April 2009, and October 2009. A total of 248 articles were identified. Existing guidelines were identified and their practices examined as models of care. Two draft guidelines were created for discussion: one for the pediatric patient with a reliable clinical examination and the other for the pediatric patient with an unreliable clinical examination. Via email, telephone, and two national videoconferences, the content of the guidelines was reviewed, discussed, and amended. The final article was prepared and circulated for author input until consensus was reached., Results: A consensus was reached on two pathways to evaluate the pediatric cervical spine: a patient with a reliable clinical examination and a patient with an unreliable examination., Conclusion: Presented herein are the consensus Trauma Association of Canada, National Pediatric Cervical Spine Evaluation Pathways for the patient with a reliable clinical examination, and the patient with and unreliable clinical examination.

Currently, level II trauma center standards allow trauma surgeons to take call out-of-hospital. To address the concern that this practice may adversely influence outcome, we tested the hypothesis that the survival of injury victims treated at a level II trauma center is significantly different from that predicted by the Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS). In addition, we examined the impact of trauma surgeons taking call out-of-hospital on the survival of patients with severe thoracoabdominal injury. Over a 26-month period, a total of 3,689 consecutive injured patients who were treated at a community hospital level II trauma center were entered into this study. There was no significant difference between the MTOS survival and the actual survival in the overall population (96% vs. 97%, respectively; Z statistic = ns). Among the patients with severe thoracoabdominal injury (i.e., Abbreviated Injury Scale score greater than or equal to 3), there was no significant difference in survival between the patients whose arrival time corresponded to the presence of an in-hospital surgeon (0700-1800 hours) versus those who arrived when a surgeon was generally out-of-hospital (1801-0659 hours), (76% vs. 81%, respectively; p = ns). From these data we conclude that there was no significant difference between the survival observed and that predicted by the MTOS at our community hospital, which complies with level II trauma center standards. Furthermore, in the cohort with severe thoracoabdominal injury, the response of trauma surgeons from out-of-hospital did not adversely influence survival.

Traumatic hemipelvectomy is a devasting injury which few patients survive. A survivor of traumatic hemipelvectomy is described. Immediate and long-term management include prompt resuscitation, vascular control, urinary and fecal diversion, wound debridement, wound closure, and physical and psychologic rehabilitation.

The treatment of penetrating thoracic injuries has been reviewed in both civilian and military series. Although most surgeons agree that closed that closed thoracostomy drainage is the initial treatment of choice, the timing of early thoracotomy and perhaps cardiorrhaphy upon patients with penetrating thoracic injuries remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine which patients will require immediate thoractomy or cardiorrhaphy following penetrating chest injury. Over a two-year period 190 patients with penetrating thoracic injuries were treated. Of 53 patients who required immediate thoracotomy, 31 suffered cardiac wounds. Seventy-nine patients required laparotomy for associated intra-abdominal injuries. The mortality rate was related to exsanguinating hemorrhage or postoperative intra-abdominal sepsis. Cardiopulmonary complications were rare in the absence of intra-abdominal sepsis and could not be attributed to the thoracic injury or thoracotomy. Indications for immediate cardiorrhaphy or thoracotomy are: 1) location of the entrance wound (70% in upper mediastinum); 2) blood pressure on admission less than 90; 3) initial thoracostomy blood loss greater than 800 cc; 4) radiographic evidence of retained hemothorax; and/or 5) clinical evidence of pericardial tamponade.

Twenty-seven patients with acute neurosurgical injuries were compared with 23 patients with neurosurgical and multisystem injuries and 10 patients with multi-system injuries without neurosurgical injuries. Patients with isolated acute neurosurgical injuries did not demonstrate a hypermetabolic state with increased loss of nitrogen and decreased circulating levels of albumin, prealbumin, and retinol-binding protein when compared to multisystem-injured patients. Patients with demonstrated hypermetabolism on day 1 were supported with parenteral nutrition which decreased their protein losses and stabilized other metabolic variables such as calcium and phosphorus. It is concluded that patients with neurosurgical and other multisystem injuries require close metabolic monitoring. Early institution of metabolic support in hypercatabolic patients may prevent clinically significant depletion states.