Search

Background/Aim: Despite its many benefits, bicycling carries the risk of accidents. Although numerous studies have reported the effect of helmet use on traumatic brain injury, it remains unclear if, and to what extent, helmet use reduces the risk of facial injuries. This is particularly true in regard to injuries of the lower face. In addition, there is limited evidence of the effect of helmet use on dentoalveolar injuries. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of dentoalveolar injuries in bicycling accidents and to explore the influence of helmet use. Material and Methods: A total of 1543 bicyclists were included from the trauma registry of a Norwegian tertiary trauma center over a 12‐year period. Data were collected prospectively, including patient characteristics, type of injury, and helmet use. The prevalence of dentoalveolar injuries was assessed in conjunction with helmet use and facial fractures. Results: Twenty‐five percent of the patients had maxillofacial injuries, and 18% of those with facial fractures exhibited concomitant dentoalveolar injuries. The most common type of dentoalveolar injury was tooth fracture (39%). The most frequent location of facial fractures with combined dentoalveolar injuries was the maxilla, which had fractured in 32 patients. Women had a higher risk of sustaining dentoalveolar injuries compared to men (odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.02‐2.22). There were 1257 patients (81%) who had reliable registration of helmet use; 54% of these wore a helmet, while 46% did not. Helmet users had an increased risk of dentoalveolar injuries compared to non‐helmeted bicyclists (adjusted odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.02‐2.31). Conclusions: Dentoalveolar injuries are fairly common in trauma patients admitted to a trauma center following bicycling accidents. Bicycling helmets are associated with an increased risk of dentoalveolar injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract for the article "Classification of Comorbidity in Trauma: Agreement and Reliability of the Pre-Injury ASA-PS Scale," by Kjetil G. Ringdal, Nils Oddvar Skaga, Petter Andreas Steen, Morten Hestnes, Petter Laake, J. Mary Jones and Hans Morten Lossius is presented.

Objective: The use of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has been postulated to be beneficial in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), although studies investigating this hypothesis have reported conflicting results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of inserting an ICP monitor on survival in patients with severe TBI., Methods: The Oslo University Hospital trauma registry was searched for the records of all patients admitted between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2013, who fulfilled the Brain Trauma Foundation criteria for intracranial hypertension and who survived at least 24 hours after admission. The impact of ICP monitoring was investigated using both a logistic regression model and a multiple imputed, propensity score-weighted logistic regression analysis., Results: The study involved 1327 patients, in which 757 patients had an ICP monitor implanted. The use of ICP monitors significantly increased in the study period (p < 0.01). The 30-day overall mortality was 24.3% (322 patients), divided into 35.1% (200 patients, 95% confidence interval [CI] 31.3%-39.1%) in the group without an ICP monitor and 16.1% (122 patients, 95% CI 13.6%-18.9%) in the group with an ICP monitor. The impact of ICP monitors on 30-day mortality was found to be beneficial both in the complete case analysis logistic regression model (odds ratio [OR] 0.23, 95% CI 0.16-0.33) and in the adjusted, aggregated, propensity score-weighted imputed data sets (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.35; both p < 0.001). The sensitivity analysis indicated that the findings are robust to unmeasured confounders., Conclusions: The authors found that the use of an ICP monitor is significantly associated with improved survival in patients with severe head injury.

Background: Field triage is important for regional trauma systems providing high sensitivity to avoid that severely injured are deprived access to trauma team resuscitation (undertriage), yet high specificity to avoid resource over-utilization (overtriage). Previous informal trauma team activation (TTA) at Ulleval University Hospital (UUH) caused imprecise triage. We have analyzed triage precision after introduction of TTA guidelines., Methods: Retrospective analysis of 7 years (2001-07) of prospectively collected trauma registry data for all patients with TTA or severe injury, defined as at least one of the following: Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, proximal penetrating injury, admitted ICU > 2 days, transferred intubated to another hospital within 2 days, dead from trauma within 30 days. Interhospital transfers to UUH and patients admitted by non-healthcare personnel were excluded. Overtriage is the fraction of TTA where patients are not severely injured (1-positive predictive value); undertriage is the fraction of severely injured admitted without TTA (1-sensitivity)., Results: Of the 4,659 patients included in the study, 2,221 (48%) were severely injured. TTA occurred 4,440 times, only 2,002 of which for severely injured (overtriage 55%). Overall undertriage was 10%. Mechanism of injury was TTA criterion in 1,508 cases (34%), of which only 392 were severely injured (overtriage 74%). Paramedic-manned prehospital services provided 66% overtriage and 17% undertriage, anaesthetist-manned services 35% overtriage and 2% undertriage. Falls, high age and admittance by paramedics were significantly associated with undertriage. A Triage-Revised Trauma Score (RTS) < 12 in the emergency department reduced the risk for undertriage compared to RTS = 12 (normal value). Field RTS was documented by anaesthetists in 64% of the patients compared to 33% among paramedics.Patients subject to undertriage had an ISS-adjusted Odds Ratio for 30-day mortality of 2.34 (95% CI 1.6-3.4, p < 0.001) compared to those correctly triaged to TTA., Conclusion: Triage precision had not improved after TTA guideline introduction. Anaesthetists perform precise trauma triage, whereas paramedics have potential for improvement. Skewed mission profiles makes comparison of differences in triage precision difficult, but criteria or the use of them may contribute. Massive undertriage among paramedics is of grave concern as patients exposed to undertriage had increased risk of dying.