Simultaneous Casualty Admissions-Do they Affect Treatment in the Receiving Trauma Center?

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous trauma admissions expose medical professionals to increased workload. The impact of simultaneous trauma admissions on hospital allocation, therapy, and outcome is currently unclear. We hypothesized that multiple admission-scenarios impact the diagnostic pathway and outcome. METHODS: The TraumaRegister DGU® was utilized. Patients admitted between 2002-2015 with an ISS ≥ 9, treated with ATLS®- algorithms were included. Group ´IND´ included individual admissions, two individuals that were admitted within 60 min of each other were selected for group ´MULT´. Patients admitted within 10 min were considered as simultaneous (´SIM´) admissions. We compared patient and trauma characteristics, treatment, and outcomes between both groups. RESULTS: 132,382 admissions were included, and 4,462/3.4% MULTiple admissions were found. The SIM-group contained 1,686/1.3% patients. The overall median injury severity score was 17 and a mean age of 48 years was found. MULT patients were more frequently admitted to level-one trauma centers (68%) than individual trauma admissions were (58%, p < 0.001). Mean time to CT-scanning (24 vs. 26/28 min) was longer in MULT / SIM patients compared to individual admissions. No differences in utilization of damage control principles were seen. Moreover, mortality rates did not differ between the groups (13.1% in regular admissions and 11.4%/10,6% in MULT/SIM patients). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that simultaneous treatment of injured patients is rare. Individuals treated in parallel with other patients were more often admitted to level-one trauma centers compared with individual patients. Although diagnostics take longer, treatment principles and mortality are equal in individual admissions and simultaneously admitted patients. More studies are required to optimize health care under these conditions.

Lessons learned from the mechanisms of posttraumatic inflammation extrapolated to the inflammatory response in COVID-19: a review.

Up to 20% of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients develop severe inflammatory complications with diffuse pulmonary inflammation, reflecting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A similar clinical profile occurs in severe trauma cases. This review compares pathophysiological and therapeutic principles of severely injured trauma patients and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The development of sequential organ failure in trauma parallels deterioration seen in severe COVID-19. Based on established pathophysiological models in the field of trauma, two complementary pathways of disease progression into severe COVID-19 have been identified. Furthermore, the transition from local contained disease into systemic and remote inflammation has been addressed. More specifically, the traumatology concept of sequential insults ('hits') resulting in immune dysregulation, is applied to COVID-19 disease progression modelling. Finally, similarities in post-insult humoral and cellular immune responses to severe trauma and severe COVID-19 are described. To minimize additional 'hits' to COVID-19 patients, we suggest postponing all elective surgery in endemic areas. Based on traumatology experience, we propose that immunoprotective protocols including lung protective ventilation, optimal thrombosis prophylaxis, secondary infection prevention and calculated antibiotic therapy are likely also beneficial in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Finally, rising SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality rates mandate exploration of out-of-the box treatment concepts, including experimental therapies designed for trauma care.

Autograft, allograft and bone substitutes in reconstructive orthopedic surgery.

Reconstruction of bone defects is a challenge for all orthopedic surgeons worldwide; to overcome this problem there are different options: the use of autografts, allografts and bone substitutes (BSs) to enhance and accelerate bone repair. Autografts have excellent biological properties but are associated with morbidity of the donor site and are restricted in volume. Allografts are available in adequate quantity but concerns still remain about the risk of infections, moreover they do not have osteogenetic properties. Bone substitutes have different indications and are very attractive for orthopedic surgeons. The present paper briefly reviews the advantages and disadvantages of autografts, allografts and BSs for bone reconstruction.