Diagnostic yields, charges, and radiation dose of chest imaging in blunt trauma evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography (CXR) is the most common imaging in adult blunt trauma patient evaluation. Knowledge of the yields, attendant costs, and radiation doses delivered may guide effective chest imaging utilization. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine the diagnostic yields of blunt trauma chest imaging (CXR and chest computed tomography [CT]), to estimate charges and radiation exposure per injury identified, and to delineate assessment points in blunt trauma evaluation at which decision instruments for selective chest imaging would have the greatest effect. METHODS: From December 2009 to January 2012, we enrolled patients older than 14 years who received CXR during blunt trauma evaluations at nine U.S. Level I trauma centers in this prospective, observational study. Thoracic injury seen on chest imaging and clinical significance of the injury were defined by a trauma expert panel. Yields of imaging were calculated, as well as mean charges and effective radiation dose (ERD) per injury. RESULTS: Of 9,905 enrolled patients, 55.4% had CXR alone, 42.0% had both CXR and CT, and 2.6% had CT alone. The yields for detecting thoracic injury were CXR 8.4% (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) = 7.8% to 8.9%), chest CT 28.8% (95% CI = 27.5% to 30.2%), and chest CT after normal CXR 15.0% (95% CI = 13.9% to 16.2%). The mean charges and ERD (millisievert [mSv]) per injury diagnosis of CXR, chest CT, and chest CT after normal CXR were $3,845 (0.24 mSv), $10,597 (30.9 mSv), and $20,347 (59.3 mSv), respectively. The mean charges and ERD per clinically major thoracic injury diagnosis on chest CT after normal CXR were $203,467 and 593 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Despite greater diagnostic yield, chest CT entails substantially higher charges and radiation dose per injury diagnosed, especially when performed after a normal CXR. Selective chest imaging decision instruments should identify patients who require no chest imaging and patients who may benefit from chest CT after a normal CXR.

Video-assisted thoracoscopy as an important tool for trauma surgeons: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Trauma patients frequently have serious chest injuries. Retained hemothoraces and persistent pneumothoraces are among the most frequent complications of chest injuries which may lead to major, long-term morbidity and mortality if these complications are not recognized and treated appropriately. Video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) is a well-established technique in surgical practice. The usefulness of VATS for treatment of complications after chest trauma has been demonstrated by several authors. However, there is an ongoing debate about the optimal timing of VATS. METHODS: A computerized search was conducted which yielded 450 studies reporting on the use of VATS for thoracic trauma. Eighteen of these studies were deemed relevant for this review. The quality of these studies was assessed using a check-list and the PRISMA guidelines. Outcome parameters were successful evacuation of the retained hemothorax or treatment of other complications as well as reduction of empyema rate, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: There was only one randomized trial and two prospective studies. Most studies report case series of institutional experiences. VATS was found to be very successful in evacuation of retained hemothoraces and seems to reduce the empyema rate subsequently. Furthermore, the length of hospital stay and costs can be drastically reduced with the early use of VATS. CONCLUSION: Early VATS is an effective treatment for retained hemothoraces or other complications of chest trauma. We propose a clinical pathway, in which VATS is used as an early intervention in order to prevent serious complications such as empyemas or trapped lung.

A management of blunt thoracic trauma in an emergency department observation unit: pre-post observational study.

BACKGROUND: The best management of patients with isolated blunt thoracic trauma at high risk of pulmonary complications (HRPC-BTT: ≥3 isolated rib fractures, sternal fracture, single or few pulmonary contusions or minimal pneumothorax) is still unclear. We compared efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a new clinical pathway involving an Emergency Department Observation Unit (EDOU) with routine care. DESIGN: Retrospective before-after study. SETTING: Level II Trauma Center within a Regional Teaching Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive series of patients with HRPC-BTT. INTERVENTIONS: a new clinical pathway involving EDOU was implemented. MAIN OUTCOMES: Death rate, tube thoracostomy, and re-admission of discharged patients. Hospital admission rate, length of hospital occupancy, overall costs, and cost-effectiveness were also compared in pre- and post-EDOU period. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients were eligible for the study: 110 patients in the pre-EDOU period and 130 in the post-EDOU period. Thirteen (12%) of the treated patients were re-admitted to the ED in the pre-EDOU period compared with only five (4%) when the EDOU was available (p = 0.03). The rate of tube thoracostomy performed in admitted patients significantly increased after EDOU implementation: 1 of 54 (1.9%) versus 4 of 32 (12.5%; p < 0.05). The rate of hospitalization decreased from 49% in the pre-EDOU period to 24% in the post-EDOU period (p < 0,005) and the length of stay in hospital in the pre-EDOU period was longer than in the EDOU period: mean 94.7 ± 79.6 versus 65.7 ± 60.6, respectively (p < 0.02). Cost analysis revealed no relevant change in cost-effectiveness per patient (median; interquartile range): €487; €103 to 1959 versus €616; €124 to 1455, respectively, in the pre- and post-EDOU period. CONCLUSIONS: In managing patients affected by HRPC-BTT, a clinical pathway involving the EDOU seems to be more effective than routine care with little impact on cost.

Economic evaluation of open vs endovascular repair of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries.

OBJECTIVES: During the last decade, endovascular repair (EV) has replaced open surgical repair (OSR) as the preferred method of treatment of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) at many trauma centers. This has resulted in reductions in mortality, length of stay, and major complications, including paraplegia, with the added expense of the initial endograft, subsequent surveillance, and reinterventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation comparing these two methods of repair. METHODS: We performed an economic comparison of EV and OSR for the treatment of BTAI using a decision tree analysis with transition points derived from our institution's experience and through a review of the literature. Over a 15-year period (1991-2006), 28 patients with BTAI were treated at our center (15 EV, 13 OSR). Costs were obtained from our hospital's case costing center, the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, Ontario's Drug Benefit Formulary, and Ontario's Schedule of Benefits for physician costs. Our center's results were then combined with those from the literature to arrive at an economic model. RESULTS: These combined results revealed that EV, when compared to OSR, resulted in decreased early mortality (7.2% vs 22.5%), decreased composite outcome of mortality and paraplegia (7.7% vs 27.6%) and decreased composite outcome of mortality and major complication (42.5% vs 69.8%). Patients undergoing EV also had shorter intensive care unit stays (12.2 vs 15.3 days), total hospital length of stays (22.5 vs 28.6 days), and ventilator days (8.0 vs 9.2 days). Additionally, patients undergoing EV had decreased total 1-year costs compared with OSR ($70,442 vs $72,833). CONCLUSIONS: EV repair of BTAIs offers a survival advantage as well as a reduction in major morbidity, including paraplegia, compared with OSR, and results in a reduction in costs at 1 year. As a result, from the cost-effectiveness point of view, EV is the DOMINANT therapy over OSR for these injuries.

Omission of routine chest x-ray after chest tube removal is safe in selected trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Definitive practice guidelines regarding the utility of chest x-ray (CXR) following chest tube removal in trauma patients have not been established. The authors hypothesized that the selective use of CXR following chest tube removal is safe and cost effective. METHODS: A retrospective review of chest tube insertions performed at a level I trauma center was conducted. RESULTS: Patients who underwent chest tube removal without subsequent CXR had a lower mean Injury Severity Score and were less likely to have suffered penetrating thoracic injuries. These patients received fewer total CXRs and had shorter durations of chest tube therapy and shorter lengths of stay following tube removal. Subsequent reinterventions were performed more frequently in the CXR group. The annual decrease in hospital charges by foregoing a CXR was $16,280. CONCLUSIONS: The selective omission of CXR following chest tube removal in less severely injured, nonventilated patients does not adversely affect outcomes or increase reintervention rates. Avoiding unnecessary routine CXR after chest tube removal could provide a significant reduction in total hospital charges.

[Thoracic trauma: incidence, social and economic costs, educational opportunities. Experience on the last eight years of Thoracic Surgical Unit of Messina University]. / Il trauma toracico: incidenza, costi socio-economici, ricaduta didattico-formativa. Esperienza della Cattedra di Chirurgia Toracica dell'Università di Messina negli ultimi otto anni.

The Authors, after extensive introduction on the incidence, etiology, classification, pathophysiology, possible complications, diagnosis and treatment of thoracic trauma, relate their experience on the last eight years, stressing the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy in management of trauma simple and complicated and assessing finally serious social impact of these pathologies and the educational opportunities provided.

¿Es costo efectiva la realizacion de los estudios radiologicos rutinarios en los pacientes con trauma cerrado en el servicio de urgencias? / ¿Is cost-effectiveness the rutinary use of radiographs in patients with close trauma in Emergency service?

El objetivo principal del presente estudio es el de determinar si es costo efectiva la realización de las radiografías de columna cervical, tórax y pelvis a todos los pacientes con trauma cerrado que acuden al servicio de urgencias. La percepción, tanto por los médicos del servicio de Urgencias, como por los cirujanos y los radiólogos, es que un alto número de estos estudios tienen resultados normales y que por lo tanto su realización no se justifica. Se revisaron las historias clínicas y los reportes radiológicos de 408 pacientes a los que se les realizó el protocolo de radiografías adoptado por el servicio de urgencias de nuestro hospital por recomendación del ATLS radiografías de columna cervical proyección lateral, tórax y de pelvis) con diagnóstico de politraumatismo secundario a trauma cerrado durante el período de junio de 1997 a mayo de 1998. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes mayores de 15 años con estas características. Se hizo la medición de costos, efectividad y la evaluación de asociación entre los hallazgos clínicos y los resultados de los estudios radiológicos. Encontramos que el examen físico es un mal predictor de la presencia de alteraciones en los pacientes con este tipo de trauma y sólo la presencia de déficit sensitivo en trauma cervical, dolor pélvico en trauma de pelvis y huellas externas en el trauma de tórax se asocian significativamente a hallazgos en la radiografía. La realización de los estudios radiológicos rutinarios, propuesto por la ATLS en los pacientes con trauma cerrado en el servicio de urgencias es costo-efectiva