Are the non-weight bearing guidelines for the after treatment of calcaneal fractures still decisive? A Dutch survey among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons.

PURPOSE: The current rehabilitation for patients with surgically treated displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACFs) consists of non-weightbearing for 8-12 weeks. The purpose of the present survey was to investigate the current pre-, peri- and post-operative practices among Dutch foot and ankle surgeons. Moreover, it aims to analyze whether surgeons comply to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) guidelines and which decision criteria were used in the determination of the start of weightbearing. METHODS: A survey was distributed among Dutch trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to determine the most common practices in postoperative weightbearing in patients with DIACFs. RESULTS: 75 surgeons responded to the survey. 33% of the respondents adhered to the AO guidelines. 4% of the respondents strictly followed non-weightbearing guidelines, while 96% interpret the AO guidelines or their local protocol freely, in any frequency. When respondents tended to deviate from the AO guidelines or local protocol, a good patients' compliance to therapy was expected. 83% of the respondents started weightbearing on the fracture, based on reported patient complaints. 87% of the respondents did not see any relation between early weightbearing and the occurrence of complications, including loosening of osteosynthesis materials. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that there is limited consensus on the rehabilitation for DIACFs. Moreover, it shows that most surgeons are inclined to interpret the current (AO) guideline or their own local protocol freely. New guidelines, supported with well-founded literature, could help surgeons in a more appropriate daily practice in weightbearing for the rehabilitation of calcaneal fractures.

Severe isolated injuries have a high impact on resource use and mortality: a Dutch nationwide observational study.

PURPOSE: The Berlin poly-trauma definition (BPD) has proven to be a valuable way of identifying patients with at least a 20% risk of mortality, by combining anatomical injury characteristics with the presence of physiological risk factors (PRFs). Severe isolated injuries (SII) are excluded from the BPD. This study describes the characteristics, resource use and outcomes of patients with SII according to their injured body region, and compares them with those included in the BPD. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Dutch National Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2019. SII patients were defined as those with an injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 4 in one body region, with at most minor additional injuries (AIS ≤ 2). We performed an SII subgroup analysis per AIS region of injury. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for SII subgroup patient outcomes, and resource needs. RESULTS: A total of 10.344 SII patients were included; 47.8% were ICU admitted, and the overall mortality was 19.5%. The adjusted risk of death was highest for external (2.5, CI 1.9-3.2) and for head SII (2.0, CI 1.7-2.2). Patients with SII to the abdomen (2.3, CI 1.9-2.8) and thorax (1.8, CI 1.6-2.0) had a significantly higher risk of ICU admission. The highest adjusted risk of disability was recorded for spine injuries (10.3, CI 8.3-12.8). The presence of ≥ 1 PRFs was associated with higher mortality rates compared to their poly-trauma counterparts, displaying rates of at least 15% for thoracic, 17% for spine, 22% for head and 49% for external SII. CONCLUSION: A severe isolated injury is a high-risk entity and should be recognized and treated as such. The addition of PRFs to the isolated anatomical injury criteria contributes to the identification of patients with SII at risk of worse outcomes.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on trauma care: a nationwide observational study.

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic severely disrupted society and the health care system. In addition to epidemiological changes, little is known about the pandemic's effects on the trauma care chain. Therefore, in addition to epidemiology and aetiology, this study aims to describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on prehospital times, resource use and outcome. METHODS: A multicentre observational cohort study based on the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcomes of trauma patients treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first (W1, March 12 through May 11) and second waves (W2, May 12 through September 23), as well as the interbellum period in between (INT, September 23 through December 31), were compared with those treated from the same periods in 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: The trauma caseload was reduced by 20% during the W1 period and 11% during the W2 period. The median length of stay was significantly shortened for hip fracture and major trauma patients (ISS ≥ 16). A 33% and 66% increase in the prevalence of minor self-harm-related injuries was recorded during the W1 and W2 periods, respectively, and a 36% increase in violence-related injuries was recorded during the INT. Mortality was significantly higher in the W1 (2.9% vs. 2.2%) and W2 (3.2% vs. 2.7%) periods. CONCLUSION: The imposed restrictions in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to diminished numbers of acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands. The long-lasting pressing demand for resources, including ICU services, has negatively affected trauma care. Further caution is warranted regarding the increased incidence of injuries related to violence and self-harm.

Modification of the TRISS: simple and practical mortality prediction after trauma in an all-inclusive registry.

PURPOSE: Numerous studies have modified the Trauma Injury and Severity Score (TRISS) to improve its predictive accuracy for specific trauma populations. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a simple and practical prediction model that accurately predicts mortality for all acute trauma admissions. METHODS: This retrospective study used Dutch National Trauma Registry data recorded between 2015 and 2018. New models were developed based on nonlinear transformations of TRISS variables (age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS)), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), the sex-age interaction, the best motor response (BMR) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification. The models were validated in 2018 data and for specific patient subgroups. The models' performance was assessed based on discrimination (areas under the curve (AUCs)) and by calibration plots. Multiple imputation was applied to account for missing values. RESULTS: The mortality rates in the development and validation datasets were 2.3% (5709/245363) and 2.5% (1959/77343), respectively. A model with sex, ASA class, and nonlinear transformations of age, SBP, the ISS and the BMR showed significantly better discrimination than the TRISS (AUC 0.915 vs. 0.861). This model was well calibrated and demonstrated good discrimination in different subsets of patients, including isolated hip fractures patients (AUC: 0.796), elderly (AUC: 0.835), less severely injured (ISS16) (AUC: 878), severely injured (ISS ≥ 16) (AUC: 0.889), traumatic brain injury (AUC: 0.910). Moreover, discrimination for patients admitted to the intensive care (AUC: s0.846), and for both non-major and major trauma center patients was excellent, with AUCs of 0.940 and 0.895, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study presents a simple and practical mortality prediction model that performed well for important subgroups of patients as well as for the heterogeneous population of all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands. Because this model includes widely available predictors, it can also be used for international evaluations of trauma care within institutions and trauma systems.

The Detrimental Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Major Trauma Outcomes in the Netherlands: A Comprehensive Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcome of major trauma patients in the Netherlands. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Major trauma patients highly rely on immediate access to specialized services, including ICUs, shortages caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may influence their outcome. METHODS: A multi-center observational cohort study, based on the Dutch National Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcome of major trauma patients (injury severity score ≥16) treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first COVID-19 peak (March 23 through May 10) were compared with those treated from the same period in 2018 and 2019 (reference period). RESULTS: During the peak period, 520 major trauma patients were admitted, versus 570 on average in the pre-COVID-19 years. Significantly fewer patients were admitted to ICU facilities during the peak than during the reference period (49.6% vs 55.8%; P=0.016). Patients with less severe traumatic brain injuries in particular were less often admitted to the ICU during the peak (40.5% vs 52.5%; P=0.005). Moreover, this subgroup showed an increased mortality compared to the reference period (13.5% vs 7.7%; P=0.044). These results were confirmed using multivariable logistic regression analyses. In addition, a significant increase in observed versus predicted mortality was recorded for patients who had a priori predicted mortality of 50% to 75% (P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 peak had an adverse effect on trauma care as major trauma patients were less often admitted to ICU and specifically those with minor through moderate brain injury had higher mortality rates.

Dutch trauma system performance: Are injured patients treated at the right place?

BACKGROUND: The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma centre (MTC). We aimed to evaluate patient distribution in the Dutch trauma system. Furthermore, we sought to identify factors associated with the undertriage and transport of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) to the MTC by emergency medical services (EMS). METHODS: Data on all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands (2015-2016) were extracted from the Dutch national trauma registry. An ambulance driving time model was applied to calculate MTC transport times and transport times of ISS >15 patients to the closest MTC and non-MTC. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ISS >15 patients' EMS undertriage to an MTC. RESULTS: Of the annual average of 78,123 acute trauma admissions, 4.9% had an ISS >15. The nonseverely injured patients were predominantly treated at non-MTCs (79.2%), and 65.4% of patients with an ISS >15 received primary MTC care. This rate varied across the eleven Dutch trauma networks (36.8%-88.4%) and was correlated with the transport times to an MTC (Pearson correlation -0.753, p=0.007). The trauma networks also differed in the rates of secondary transfers of ISS >15 patients to MTC hospitals (7.8% - 59.3%) and definitive MTC care (43.6% - 93.2%). Factors associated with EMS undertriage of ISS >15 patients to the MTC were female sex, older age, severe thoracic and abdominal injury, and longer additional EMS transport times. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of all severely injured patients in the Netherlands are not initially treated at an MTC. Special attention needs to be directed to identifying patient groups with a high risk of undertriage. Furthermore, resources to overcome longer transport times to an MTC, including the availability of ambulance and helicopter services, may improve direct MTC care and result in a decrease in the variation of the undertriage of severely injured patients to MTCs among the Dutch trauma networks. Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to improving primary triage guidelines and instituting uniform interfacility transfer agreements.

Evaluation of the Berlin polytrauma definition: A Dutch nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of ≥3 in ≥2 body regions (2AIS ≥3) combined with the presence of ≥1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODS: The evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS ≥3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of ≥16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS ≥3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS ≥3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of ≥16. RESULTS: The DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of ≥16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS ≥3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS ≥3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS ≥3 and ISS ≥16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS ≥16 and 2AIS ≥3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.