The effect of trauma program registry on reported mortality rates.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the relationship that the brand of trauma program registry (TPR) has on mortality rate (MR) in the reports prepared by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACSCOT) trauma center (TC) site surveyors. METHODS: Data from 242 ACSCOT adult TC survey reports (88 Level I, 115 Level II, and 39 Level III) were analyzed for annual trauma volume, injury severity score (ISS), MR, and TPR. Six TPR (A through F) were identified; group F was a composite of several infrequently used TPRs. This report focuses on the ISS range 16-24 because of the likelihood that the mean for each TC would be near 20 and MR is high enough so that a difference, if present, could be statistically documented. RESULTS: For the total group, MR showed no correlation with TC volume or TC level for ISS 16-24. MR was significantly different according to which TPR was used by the TCs. The MR is less (4.8%) for 14 high volume TCs (over 1200 admits) using TPR A compared with 33 low volume TCs (below 800 admits) using TPR A (6.34%). CONCLUSION: The MR for ISS 16-24 in ACSCOT-surveyed TCs differs within subgroups based on type of TPR utilized. This may reflect improper use of the software programs. Enhanced skill in the application of software programs designed to generate ISS scores is essential if meaningful studies on the effects of improved trauma care on MR are to be conducted. Hand scored ISS by trained personnel may circumvent this problem.

Mathematical modeling to define optimum operating room staffing needs for trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Level II trauma centers may be verified (1999, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma) with an on-call operating room team if the performance-improvement program shows no adverse outcomes. Using queuing and simulation methodology, this study attempted to add a volume guideline. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 72 previously verified trauma centers identified multiple demographic factors, including specific information about the first trauma-related operation that was done between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM each month for 12 consecutive months. RESULTS: The annual admissions averaged 1,477 for 37 Level I trauma centers, 802 for 28 Level II trauma centers, 481 for 4 Level III trauma centers, and 731 for 3 pediatric trauma centers. The annual admissions correlated with the number of operations done between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM (p < 0.001). These 946 operations were performed by general surgery (39%), neurosurgery (8%), orthopaedic surgery (33%), another specialty (9%), or multiple services (10%). Admission to operation time was within 30 minutes for 12.1% of patients (2.6% for blunt and 24.1% for penetrating injuries). The probability of operation within 30 minutes of arrival varied with the number of admissions and with the percentage of penetrating versus blunt injuries. The likely number of operations from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM would be 19 for 500 annual admissions, 26 for 750 annual admissions, and 34 for 1,000 annual admissions, with 5.83, 7.98, and 10.13 patients, respectively, going to operation within 30 min. The probability that two rooms would be occupied simultaneously was 0.14 and 0.24 for centers admitting 500 and 1,000 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma centers performing fewer than six operations between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM per year could conserve resources by using an immediately available on-call team, with responses monitored by the performance-improvement program.

Penetrating esophageal injuries: multicenter study of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to define the period of time after which delays in management incurred by investigations cause increased morbidity and mortality. The outcome study is intended to correlate time with death from esophageal causes, overall complications, esophageal related complications, and surgical intensive care unit length of stay. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study involving 34 trauma centers in the United States, under the auspices of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multi-institutional Trials Committee over a span of 10.5 years. Patients surviving to reach the operating room (OR) were divided into two groups: those that underwent diagnostic studies to identify their injuries (preoperative evaluation group) and those that went immediately to the OR (no preoperative evaluation group). Statistical methods included Fisher's exact test, Student's T test, and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The study involved 405 patients: 355 male patients (86.5%) and 50 female patients (13.5%). The mean Revised Trauma Score was 6.3, the mean Injury Severity Score was 28, and the mean time interval to the OR was 6.5 hours. There were associated injuries in 356 patients (88%), and an overall complication rate of 53.5%. Overall mortality was 78 of 405 (19%). Three hundred forty-six patients survived to reach the OR: 171 in the preoperative evaluation group and 175 in the no preoperative evaluation group. No statistically significant differences were noted in the two groups in the following parameters: number of patients, age, Injury Severity Score, admission blood pressure, anatomic location of injury (cervical or thoracic), surgical management (primary repair, resection and anastomosis, resection and diversion, flaps), number of associated injuries, and mortality. Average length of time to the OR was 13 hours in the preoperative evaluation group versus 1 hour in the no preoperative evaluation group (p < 0.001). Overall complications occurred in 134 in the preoperative evaluation group versus 87 in the no preoperative evaluation group (p < 0.001), and 74 (41%) esophageal related complications occurred in the preoperative evaluation group versus 32 (19%) in the no preoperative evaluation group (p = 0.003). Mean surgical intensive care unit length of stay was 11 days in the preoperative evaluation group versus 7 days in the no preoperative evaluation group (p = 0.012). Logistic regression analysis identified as independent risk factors for the development of esophageal related complications included time delays in preoperative evaluation (odds ratio, 3.13), American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale grade >2 (odds ratio, 2.62), and resection and diversion (odds ratio, 4.47). CONCLUSION: Esophageal injuries carry a high morbidity and mortality. Increased esophageal related morbidity occurs with the diagnostic workup and its inherent delay in operative repair of these injuries. For centers practicing selective management of penetrating neck injuries and transmediastinal gunshot wounds, rapid diagnosis and definitive repair should be made a high priority.

Simulation program for optimal orthopedic call: a modeling system for orthopedic surgical trauma call.

This report uses a mathematical modeling system to define optimal orthopedic coverage for trauma centers. Data from 2,325 patients treated with emergency orthopedic operations within 24 hours of admission at 78 randomly sampled and at four totally sampled verified centers were used to create a profile of (1) admission by month, day, and hour; (2) operation times; and (3) operation duration. The reason for operation included (1) open fracture or crush (809 patients); (2) irreducible dislocations (164 patients); (3) fracture with vascular injury (seven patients); (4) dislocation with vascular injury (17 patients); (5) compartment syndrome (11 patients); (6) femoral neck fracture in young patients (36 patients); (7) combination of categories 1 to 6 (70 patients); (8) fracture with multiple injuries (171 patients); and (9) urgent not emergent (1,040 patients). The program defined the frequency that an injured patient needing an orthopedic consult would wait beyond 30 minutes because the orthopedic surgeon was doing a trauma related operation at a center with one or two orthopedic surgeons on call. The probability that a patient cannot be seen promptly by one orthopedic surgeon in a center doing 25, 50, 75, 100, 200, and 300 emergency procedures per year is 0.17, 0.74, 1.6, 3.1, 12.5, and 28 patients per year. When two are on call, 1.3 patients, yearly, will wait more than 30 minutes in a center doing 300 emergency procedures. Thus, mandatory orthopedic backup call for a trauma center performing fewer than 100 emergent trauma procedures within 24 hours is unwarranted.

Prospective study of blunt aortic injury: Multicenter Trial of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Blunt aortic injury is a major cause of death from blunt trauma. Evolution of diagnostic techniques and methods of operative repair have altered the management and posed new questions in recent years. METHODS: This study was a prospectively conducted multi-center trial involving 50 trauma centers in North America under the direction of the Multi-institutional Trial Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. RESULTS: There were 274 blunt aortic injury cases studied over 2.5 years, of which 81% were caused by automobile crashes. Chest computed tomography and transesophageal echocardiography were applied in 88 and 30 cases, respectively, and were 75 and 80% diagnostic, respectively. Two hundred seven stable patients underwent planned thoracotomy and repair. Clamp and sew technique was used in 73 (35%) and bypass techniques in 134 (65%). Overall mortality was 31%, with 63% of deaths being attributable to aortic rupture; mortality was not affected by method of repair. Paraplegia occurred postoperatively in 8.7%. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated clamp and sew (p = 0.002) and aortic cross clamp time of > or = 30 minutes (p = 0.01) to be associated with development of postoperative paraplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Rupture after hospital admission remains a major problem. Although newer diagnostic techniques are being applied, at this time aortography remains the diagnostic standard. Aortic cross clamp time beyond 30 minutes was associated with paraplegia; bypass techniques, which provide distal aortic perfusion, produced significantly lower paraplegia rates than the clamp and sew approach.