Trauma systems in Asian countries: challenges and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma burden is one of the leading causes of young human life and economic loss in low- and middle-income countries. Improved emergency and trauma care systems may save up to 2 million lives in these countries. METHOD: This is a comprehensive expert opinion participated by 4 experts analyzing 6 Asian countries compiling the most pressing trauma care issues in Asia as well as goal directed solutions for uplifting of trauma care in these countries. RESULT: Lack of legislation, stable funding under a dedicated lead agency is a major deterrent to development and sustainment of trauma systems in most Asian countries. While advocating trauma, critical care as a specialty is a key event in the system establishment, Trauma specialized training is challenging in low resource settings and can be circumvented by regional cooperation in creating trauma specialized academic centers of excellence. Trauma quality improvement process is integral to the system maturity but acquisition and analysis of quality data through trauma specific registries is the least developed in the Asian setting.

Global assessment of military and civilian trauma systems integration: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of trauma disproportionately affects low-income countries and middle-income countries (LMIC), with variability in trauma systems between countries. Military and civilian healthcare systems have a shared interest in building trauma capacity for use during peace and war. However, in LMICs it is largely unknown if and how these entities work together. Understanding the successful integration of these systems can inform partnerships that can strengthen trauma care. This scoping review aims to identify examples of military-civilian trauma systems integration and describe the methods, domains, and indicators associated with integration including barriers and facilitators. METHODS: A scoping review of all appropriate databases was performed to identify papers with evidence of military and civilian trauma systems integration. After manuscripts were selected for inclusion, relevant data was extracted and coded into methods of integration, domains of integration, and collected information regarding indicators of integration, which were further categorized into facilitators or barriers. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included with authors from 18 countries describing experiences in 23 countries. There was a predominance of authorship and experiences from High-Income Countries (91.9 and 75.7%, respectively). Five key domains of integration were identified; Academic Integration was the most common (45.9%). Among indicators, the most common facilitator was administrative support and the lack of this was the most common barrier. The most common method of integration was Collaboration (50%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates the existence of military and civilian trauma systems integration in several countries. High-income country data dominates the literature, and thus a more robust understanding of trauma systems integration, inclusive of all geographic locations and income statuses, is necessary prior to development of a framework to guide integration. Nonetheless, the facilitators identified in this study describe the factors and environment in which integration is feasible and highlight optimal indicators of entry.

A critical appraisal of impact of compounding factors in limb salvage decision making in combat extremity vascular trauma.

OBJECTIVE: For more than half a century, surgeons who managed vascular injuries were guided by a 6-hour maximum ischaemic time dogma in their decision to proceed with vascular reconstruction or not. Contemporary large animal survival model experiments aimed at redefining the critical ischaemic time threshold concluded this to be less than 5 hours. Our clinical experience from recent combat vascular trauma contradicts this dogma with limb salvage following vascular reconstruction with an average ischaemic time of 6 hours. METHODS: During an 8-month period of the Sri Lankan Civil War, all patients with penetrating extremity vascular injuries were prospectively recorded by a single surgeon and retrospectively analysed. A total of 76 arterial injuries was analysed for demography, injury anatomy and physiology, treatment and outcomes. Subsequent statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of independent variables to include; injury anatomy, concomitant venous, skeletal trauma, shock at presentation and time delay from injury to reconstruction. RESULTS: In this study, the 76 extremity arterial injuries had a median ischaemic time of 290 (IQR 225-375) min. Segmental arterial injury (p=0.02), skeletal trauma (p=0.05) and fasciotomy (p=0.03) were found to have a stronger correlation to subsequent amputation than ischaemic time. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors affect limb viability following compromised distal circulation and our data show a trend towards various subsets of limbs that are more vulnerable due to inherent or acquired paucity of collateral circulation. Early identification and prioritisation of these limbs could achieve functional limb salvage if recognised. Further prospective research should look into the clinical, biochemical and morphological markers to facilitate selection and prioritisation of limb revascularisation.