Utility of the Marshall & Rotterdam Classification Scores in Predicting Outcomes in Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a leading cause of mortality in the trauma population. Accurate prognosis remains a challenge. Two common Computed Tomography (CT)-based prognostic models include the Marshall Classification and the Rotterdam CT Score. This study aims to determine the utility of the Marshall and Rotterdam scores in predicting mortality for adult patients in coma with severe TBI. METHOD: Retrospective review of our Level 1 Trauma Center's registry for patients ≥ 18 years of age with blunt TBI and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3-5, with no other significant injuries. Admission Head CT was evaluated for the presence of extra-axial blood (SDH, EDH, SAH, IVH), intra-axial blood (contusions, diffuse axonal injury), midline shift and mass effect on basilar cisterns. Rotterdam and Marshall scores were calculated for all patients; subsequently patients were divided into two groups according to their score (< 4, ≥ 4). RESULTS: 106 patients met inclusion criteria; 75.5% were males (n = 80) and 24.5% females (n = 26). The mean age was 52. The odds ratio (OR) of dying from severe TBI for patients in coma with a Rotterdam score of ≥ 4 compared to < 4 was OR = 17 (P < 0.05). The odds of dying from severe TBI for patients in coma with a Marshall score of ≥ 4 versus < 4 was OR = 11 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Higher scores in the Marshall classification and the Rotterdam system are associated with increased odds of mortality in adult patients in come from severe TBI after blunt injury. The results of our study support these scoring systems and revealed that a cutoff score of < 4 was associated with improved survival.

Inter- and intrarater reliability in computed axial tomographic grading of splenic injury: why so many grading scales?

OBJECTIVE: After splenic trauma, critical decisions regarding operative intervention are often made with the aid of computed axial tomographic (CT) scan findings. No CT scan-based grading scale has been demonstrated to predict accurately which patients require operative or radiologic intervention for their splenic injuries. We hypothesized that use of the most common grading scale, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma scale, would be associated with low intra- and interreliability scores. We assessed the ability of experienced trauma radiologists to differentiate grade III from grade IV splenic injuries. METHODS: The films of patients who had undergone abdominal CT scanning before splenectomy for grade III or IV injuries were serially evaluated by four trauma radiology faculty weekly for 3 weeks. We assessed intra- and interrater reliability for grading and for presence of contrast blush. RESULTS: Intrarater reproducibility yielded a weighted kappa score of 0.15 to 0.77. Interrater reliability weighted kappa scores ranged from 0 to 0.84, with a mean value of 0.23. CONCLUSION: CT imaging is not reliable for identifying grades III and IV splenic injury, as experienced radiologists often underestimate the magnitude of injury. Interrater reliability is poor. Factors other than the CT grade of splenic injury should determine whether patients require operative or angiographic therapy.