Trauma Laparoscopy: Time Efficient, Cost Effective, and Safe.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy has demonstrated improved outcomes in abdominal surgery; however, its use in trauma has been less compelling. In this study, we hypothesize that laparoscopy may be observed to have lower costs and complications with similar operative times compared to open exploration in appropriately selected patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed adult patients undergoing abdominal exploration after blunt and penetrating trauma at our level 1 center from 2008 to 2020. Data included mechanism, operative time, length of stay (LOS), hospital charges, and complications. Patients were grouped as follows: therapeutic and nontherapeutic diagnostic laparoscopy and celiotomy. Therapeutic procedures included suture repair of hollow viscus organs or diaphragm, evacuation of hematoma, and hemorrhage control of solid organ or mesenteric injury. Unstable patients, repair of major vascular injuries or resection of an organ or bowel were excluded. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-six patients were included with comparable demographics. Diagnostic laparoscopy had shorter operative times, LOS, and lower hospital charges compared to diagnostic celiotomy controls. Similarly, therapeutic laparoscopy had shorter LOS and lower hospital costs compared to therapeutic celiotomy. The operative time was not statistically different in this comparison. Patients in the celiotomy groups had more postoperative complications. The differences in operative time, LOS and hospital charges were not statistically significant in the diagnostic laparoscopy compared to diagnostic laparoscopy converted to diagnostic celiotomy group, nor in the therapeutic laparoscopy compared to the diagnostic laparoscopy converted to therapeutic laparoscopy group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy can be used safely in penetrating and blunt abdominal trauma. In this cohort, laparoscopy was observed to have shorter operative times and LOS with lower hospital charges and fewer complications.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine computed tomography angiography (CTA) for lower extremity penetrating trauma.

BACKGROUND: Routine evaluation with CTA for patients with isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma and normal ankle-brachial-indices (ABI) remains controversial. While prior literature has found normal ABI's (≥0.9) and a normal clinical examination to be adequate for safe discharge, there remains concern for missed injuries which could lead to delayed surgical intervention and unnecessary morbidity. Our hypothesis was that routine CTA after isolated lower extremity penetrating trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination is not cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obtaining a CTA routinely compared to clinical observation and ABI evaluation in hemodynamically normal patients with isolated penetrating lower extremity trauma. Our base case was a patient that sustained penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs that received a CTA in the trauma bay. Costs, probability, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were generated from published literature. RESULTS: Clinical evaluation only (no CTA) was cost-effective with a cost of $2056.13 and 0.98 QALYs gained compared to routine CTA which had increased costs of $7449.91 and lower QALYs 0.92. Using one-way sensitivity analysis, routine CTA does not become the cost-effective strategy until the cost of a missed injury reaches $210,075.83. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with isolated, penetrating lower extremity trauma with normal ABIs and clinical examination do not warrant routine CTA as there is no benefit with increased costs.

Nationwide Outcomes and Risk Factors for Reinjury After Penetrating Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that a notable portion of patients who are readmitted for reinjury after penetrating trauma present to a different hospital. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors for reinjury after penetrating trauma including reinjury admissions to different hospitals. METHODS: The 2010-2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for patients surviving penetrating trauma. E-codes identified patients subsequently admitted with a new diagnosis of blunt or penetrating trauma. Univariable analysis was performed using 44 injury, patient, and hospital characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression using significant variables identified risk factors for the outcomes of reinjury, different hospital readmission, and in-hospital mortality after reinjury. RESULTS: There were 443,113 patients identified. The reinjury rate was 3.5%. Patients presented to a different hospital in 30.0% of reinjuries. Self-inflicted injuries had a higher risk of reinjury (odds ratio [OR]: 2.66, P < 0.05). Readmission to a different hospital increased risk of mortality (OR: 1.62, P < 0.05). Firearm injury on index admission increased risk of mortality after reinjury (OR: 1.94, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first national finding that one in three patients present to a different hospital for reinjury after penetrating trauma and have a higher risk of mortality due to this fragmentation of care. These findings have implications for quality and cost improvements by identifying areas to improve continuity of care and the implementation of penetrating injury prevention programs.

Did the Affordable Care Act Reach Penetrating Trauma Patients?

BACKGROUND: The benefits of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for trauma patients have been well established. However, the ACA's impact on penetrating trauma patients (PTPs), a population that is historically young and uninsured, has not been defined. We hypothesized that PTPs in the post-ACA era would have better outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was queried for all PTPs from 2009 (pre-ACA) and 2011-2014 (post-ACA). Subset analysis was performed in patients aged 19-25 y, as this group was eligible for the ACA's dependent care provision (DCP). RESULTS: There were 9,714,471 patients in the study, with 2,053,501 (21.1%) pre-ACA and 7,660,970 (78.9%) post-ACA. When compared to pre-ACA, patients in the post-ACA cohort were more likely to have commercial/private insurance, less likely to have Medicaid, and more likely to be uninsured. On logistic regression, the pre-ACA era was associated with mortality (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04, P = 0.004). Being uninsured was associated with mortality (HR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.87-1.92, P < 0.001). On subset analysis of the DCP age group, post-ACA patients were more likely to be uninsured (24.1% versus 17.6%; P < 0.001). In addition, for the DCP age group, pre-ACA era was not associated with mortality (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.06, P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Although the ACA provided a survival benefit to PTPs overall, it did not increase insurance coverage for this population. In addition, the DCP of the ACA did not improve insurance access for PTP in the eligible age group. Further efforts are needed to extend insurance access to this population.

National cost of trauma care by payer status.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have described the burden of trauma care, but few have explored the economic burden of trauma inpatient costs from a payer's perspective or highlighted the differences in the average costs per person by payer status. The present study provides a conservative inpatient national trauma cost estimate and describes the variation in average inpatient trauma cost by payer status. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who had received trauma care at hospitals in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005-2010 was conducted. Our sample patients were selected using the appropriate "International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification" codes to identify admissions due to traumatic injury. The data were weighted to provide national population estimates, and all cost and charges were converted to 2010 US dollar equivalents. Generalized linear models were used to describe the costs by payer status, adjusting for patient characteristics, such as age, gender, and race, and hospital characteristics, such as location, teaching status, and patient case mix. RESULTS: A total of 2,542,551 patients were eligible for the present study, with the payer status as follows: 672,960 patients (26.47%) with private insurance, 1,244,817 (48.96%) with Medicare, 262,256 (10.31%) with Medicaid, 195,056 (7.67%) with self-pay, 18,506 (0.73%) with no charge, and 150,956 (5.94%) with other types of insurance. The estimated yearly trauma inpatient cost burden was highest for Medicare at $17,551,393,082 (46.79%), followed by private insurance ($10,772,025,421 [28.72%]), Medicaid ($3,711,686,012 [9.89%], self-pay ($2,831,438,460 [7.55%]), and other payer types ($2,370,187,494 [6.32%]. The estimated yearly trauma inpatient cost burden was $274,598,190 (0.73%) for patients who were not charged for their inpatient trauma treatment. Our adjusted national inpatient trauma yearly costs were estimated at $37,511,328,659 US dollars. Privately insured patients had a significantly higher mean cost per person than did the Medicare, Medicaid, self-pay, or no charge patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study have demonstrated that the distribution of trauma burden across payers is significantly different from that of the overall healthcare system and suggest that although the burden of trauma is high, the burden of self-pay or nonreimbursed inpatient services is actually lower than that of overall medical care.

The variation of acute treatment costs of trauma in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: In order to assist health service planning, understanding factors that influence higher trauma treatment costs is essential. The majority of trauma costing research reports the cost of trauma from the perspective of the receiving hospital. There has been no comprehensive synthesis and little assessment of the drivers of cost variation, such as country, trauma, subgroups and methods. The aim of this review is to provide a synthesis of research reporting the trauma treatment costs and factors associated with higher treatment costs in high income countries. METHODS: A systematic search for articles relating to the cost of acute trauma care was performed and included studies reporting injury severity scores (ISS), per patient cost/charge estimates; and costing methods. Cost and charge values were indexed to 2011 cost equivalents and converted to US dollars using purchasing power parities. RESULTS: A total of twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Eighty-one percent of these studies were conducted in high income countries including USA, Australia, Europe and UK. Studies either reported a cost (74.1%) or charge estimate (25.9%) for the acute treatment of trauma. Across studies, the median per patient cost of acute trauma treatment was $22,448 (IQR: $11,819-$33,701). However, there was variability in costing methods used with 18% of studies providing comprehensive cost methods. Sixty-three percent of studies reported cost or charge items incorporated in their cost analysis and 52% reported items excluded in their analysis. In all publications reviewed, predictors of cost included Injury Severity Score (ISS), surgical intervention, hospital and intensive care, length of stay, polytrauma and age. CONCLUSION: The acute treatment cost of trauma is higher than other disease groups. Research has been largely conducted in high income countries and variability exists in reporting costing methods as well as the actual costs. Patient populations studied and the cost methods employed are the primary drivers for the treatment costs. Targeted research into the costs of trauma care is required to facilitate informed health service planning.

[Vacuum-assisted closure of head and neck wounds]. / Vakuumversiegelungstherapie im Kopf-Hals-Bereich.

OBJECTIVE: Since the early 1990s, vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy has been used to treat acute and chronic wounds in almost all disciplines of surgery in Germany. Taking this into consideration, the use of vacuum therapy in the area of head and neck surgery was examined. METHODS: A literature review using MEDLINE (with PubMed) and EMBASE as well as a Cochrane search was performed on 15 December 2010. Search terms included "vacuum therapy", "vacuum-assisted closure", "V.A.C.", "VAC", "(topical) negative pressure (wound therapy)". RESULTS: There were 1,502 peer-reviewed articles about "vacuum therapy" concerning all medical fields in literature. There were a total of 37 publications from the discipline of head and neck surgery (538 patients). Although benefits for the patients are consistently reported, these results are usually presented only in case reports or case series (evidence level IV and V). Positive results are mainly observed for the treatment of lifting defects in reconstructive surgery and for the treatment of acute and chronic soft tissue defects of the neck. Only little experience exists in the vacuum therapy of war wounds in the head and neck region. CONCLUSION: Due to its advantages (i.e., hygienic temporary wound care with support of the continuous decontamination, wound drainage, promotion of granulation tissue formation, and effective wound conditioning), VAC is an integral and indispensable part of modern wound treatment. Analogous to this general experience, a benefit must also be assumed for head and neck wounds. High-quality and reliable studies on the use of VAC must be performed to verify this observation and the future reimbursement of in- and outpatient wound VAC treatment.

Penetrating Spinal Cord Injury in civilians: analysis of a national database.

BACKGROUND: Spinal trauma is common in polytrauma; spinal cord injury (SCI) is present in a subset of these patients. Penetrating SCI has been studied in the military; however, civilian SCI is less studied. Civilian injury pathophysiology varies given the generally lower velocity of the projectiles. We sought to investigate civilian penetrating SCI in the United States. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample for data regarding penetrating spinal cord injury from the past 10 years (2006-2015). The National Inpatient Sample includes data of 20% of discharged patients from U.S. hospitals. We analyzed trends of penetrating SCI regarding its diagnosis, demographics, surgical management, length of stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: In the past 10 years the incidence of penetrating SCI in all SCI patients has remained stable with a mean of 5.5% (range 4.3%-6.6%). Of the patients with penetrating SCI, only 17% of them underwent a surgical procedure, compared with 55% for nonpenetrating SCI. Patients with penetrating SCI had a longer length of stay (average 23 days) compared with nonpenetrating SCI (15 days). Hospital charges were higher for penetrating SCI: $230,186 compared with $192,022 for closed SCI. Males patients were more affected by penetrating SCI, as well as black and Hispanic populations compared with whites. CONCLUSIONS: Penetrating SCI represents 5.5% of all SCI patients. Men, blacks, and Hispanics are disproportionally more affected by penetrating SCI. Patients with penetrating SCI have fewer surgical interventions, but their overall length of stay and hospital costs are greater compared with nonpenetrating SCI.

Analysis of treatment costs for complex scalp wounds.

BACKGROUND: Two stage reconstructions of deep scalp wounds with exposed calvarial bone require a vital granulation tissue. By evaluating different surgical approaches functional and cosmetic results as well as economic aspects have to be taken into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 52 patients undergoing three different surgical procedures for soft tissue reconstruction of complex scalp wounds with exposed bone were included into a retrospective study. All patients underwent a two stage procedure with 3D histologic control, soft tissue reconstruction and final split thickness skin grafting. Soft tissue reconstruction was carried out using allogenic fascia lata, an artificial skin substitute or a negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). The costs for all used materials as well as personnel and infrastructure were calculated. RESULTS: Comparing the costs for the different treatments, the fascia lata group was least costly (4,475 €) followed by the artificial skin substitute group (4,557 €). The highest expenses occurred in the NPWT group (7,.521 €). The artificial skin substitute group had the fewest dressing changes and the shortest treatment time. CONCLUSIONS: Although dermal regeneration templates are expensive, their use may be economic. NPWT causes high treatment costs due to high daily rental rates and frequent and time-consuming dressing changes.

Imaging the oesophagus after penetrating cervical trauma using water-soluble contrast alone: simple, cost-effective and accurate.

AIM: This audit aims to gauge the safety and efficacy of iso-oncotic water-soluble contrast media as the sole imaging evaluation of the distal pharynx and cervical oesophagus after penetrating cervical trauma. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed over a 4-year period of all patients with penetrating cervical trauma to zones 1 and 2 of the neck who were subjected to imaging evaluation as part of a selective non-operative management policy for penetrating cervical trauma. The outcome was reviewed and the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the investigation were determined. The surgical management of identified injuries is also described. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-five contrast studies were included with 11 studies positive for pathology (9 injuries, 2 incidental findings). Surgery was undertaken in 4 patients with cervical oesophageal injuries and conservative management was carried out in 5 cases of distal pharyngeal injury. No missed injuries and no significant adverse events were identified during the study period. CONCLUSION: A contrast study of the oesophagus with water-soluble iso-oncotic contrast media as the sole diagnostic imaging modality is safe (avoiding the risk of aspiration pneumonia), reliable (identifying all injuries) and cost-efficient (avoiding the need for additional expensive investigations) in cases of penetrating cervical trauma.

Blunt versus penetrating trauma: Is there a resource intensity discrepancy?

BACKGROUND: The rising cost of healthcare requires responsible allocation of resources. Not all trauma centers see the same types of patients. We hypothesized that patients with blunt injuries require more resources than patients with penetrating injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all highest-level activation trauma patients at our busy urban Level I Trauma Center over five years. Data included demographics, injuries, hospital charges, and resources used. A p value < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: 4578 patients were included (2037 blunt and 2541 penetrating). Blunt patients were more severely injured, more often admitted, required more radiographic studies, had longer hospital, intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation days, and therefore, higher hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: Within one center, patients with blunt injuries required more resources than those with penetrating injuries. Understanding this pattern will allow trauma systems to better allocate limited resources based on each center's mechanism of injury distribution.

Excess mortality, length of stay, and costs associated with serious hemorrhage among trauma patients: findings from the National Trauma Data Bank.

Trauma is a serious injury or shock to the body from violence or crash and is an important and growing global health risk. Using 2000 to 2004 data from a comprehensive trauma registry, we estimated the prevalence of serious blunt and penetrating trauma-related hemorrhage among patients admitted to U.S. trauma centers along with excess in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and inpatient costs. There were 65,750 patients with blunt trauma and 12,992 patients with penetrating trauma included in our analyses. Of patients sustaining blunt trauma, 7.6 per cent had serious hemorrhage; 18.8 per cent of patients sustaining penetrating trauma had serious hemorrhage. In-hospital mortality rates were significantly (P < 0.05) higher for patients with serious hemorrhage than for patients without (24.9 per cent versus 8.4 per cent for blunt; 23.4 per cent versus 4.2 per cent for penetrating). Patients with serious hemorrhage had adjusted mean excess lengths of stay of 0.4 days for blunt trauma and 2.7 days for penetrating trauma (P < 0.05); adjusted excess costs were $296 per day for patients sustaining blunt trauma and $637 per day for patients sustaining penetrating trauma (P < 0.05). In both blunt and penetrating trauma cases, serious hemorrhage is significantly associated with excess mortality, longer hospital stays, and higher costs.

"Shift work" improves survival and reduces intensive care unit use in seriously injured patients.

We assessed whether a trauma service model with an emphasis on continuity of care by using "shift work" will improve trauma outcomes and cost. This was a case-control cohort study that took place at a university-affiliated Level I trauma center. All patients (n=4283) evaluated for traumatic injuries between May 1, 2002 and April 30, 2004 were included. During Period I (May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003), a rotating off-service team provided initial management between 5:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The "day team" provided all other care and was responsible for continuity of care. In Period II (May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004), a dedicated trauma service consisting of two resident teams evaluated all injured patients. Variables included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation requirements, hospital mortality, and hospital care costs. Demographics and injury mechanism for both periods were similar, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) in Period II was greater (ISS, 8.2% vs. 7.2%, P < 0.0001; ISS > 15, 18.5% vs. 15.4%). In the more severely injured (ISS > 15), patients in Period II had shorter hospital LOS (8.6 vs. 9.7 days, P = 0.98), a shorter ICU LOS (5.5 vs. 7.7 days, P = 0.039), shorter mechanical ventilator requirements (5.5 vs. 7.7 days, P = 0.32), improved hospital mortality rate (19.9% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.029), and decreased hospital costs (19,146 dollars vs. 21,274 dollars, P = 0.36). On multivariate analysis, factors affecting mortality and LOS included age, initial vital signs, injury type, and ISS. Overall, the two trauma service models resulted in similar outcomes. Although multivariate analysis revealed that treatment period did not affect mortality, our study revealed improved patient survival and reduction in LOS and cost for the severely injured in Period II.

Feasibility of selective non-operative management for penetrating abdominal trauma in France.

INTRODUCTION: In France, non-operative management (NOM) is not the widely accepted treatment for penetrating wounds. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of NOM for the treatment of penetrating abdominal traumas at 3 hospitals in the Southeast of France. METHODOLOGY: Our study was multicentric and retroprospective from January, 2010 to September, 2013. Patients presenting with a penetrating abdominal stab wound (SW) or gunshot wound (GSW) were included in the study. Those with signs of acute abdomen or hemodynamic instability had immediate surgery. Patients who were hemodynamically stable had a CT scan with contrast. If no intra-abdominal injury requiring surgery was evident, patients were observed. Criteria evaluated were failed NOM and its morbidity, rate of non-therapeutic procedures (NTP) and their morbidity, length of hospital stay and cost analysis. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included in the study. One patient died at admission. Twenty-seven were selected for NOM (20 SW and 7 GSW). Morbidity rate was 18%. Failure rate was 7.4% (2 patients) and there were no mortality. Seventy-two patients required operation of which 22 were NTP. In this sub-group, the morbidity rate was 9%. There were no mortality. Median length of hospital stay was 4 days for the NOM group and 5.5 days for group requiring surgery. Cost analysis showed an economic advantage to NOM. CONCLUSION: Implementation of NOM of penetrating trauma is feasible and safe in France. Indications may be extended even for some GSW. Clinical criteria are clearly defined but CT scan criteria should be better described to improve patient selection. NOM reduced costs and length of hospital stay.

Spinal cord injury. A preventable public burden.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating occurrence with important consequences for the individual and society. Previous studies have documented the epidemiology and costs of SCI and the rehabilitation needs after SCI; however, data about the preventability of SCI are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that most SCIs are preventable and that much of the cost of SCI is borne by the public. DESIGN: Retrospective review of medical records and trauma registry data. SETTING: A 417-bed county hospital with a level I trauma center. METHODS: To evaluate the preventability of SCI, the records of trauma patients sustaining SCI from July 1, 1990, through June 30, 1995, were reviewed. The criteria for preventability of blunt injuries included the following: failure to use restraint devices; intoxication of drivers, motorcyclists, or pedestrians; and falls or diving accidents involving the use of drugs or alcohol. The criteria for preventability of penetrating injuries included the following: illegal possession of a firearm, accidental discharge of a weapon, and suicide attempts. Statistics were performed with the paired Student t test and chi 2 with significance attributed to a P value less than .05. RESULTS: Spinal cord injury occurred in 150 patients; 71% of the injuries were the result of blunt trauma. Injury was potentially preventable in 74% of the blunt injuries and 66% of the penetrating injuries (P = .15). Patients with a penetrating SCI were younger (P < .001) and relied more on public funding than did those with a blunt SCI (65% vs 81%; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Most SCIs are preventable with strict enforcement of existing statutes. Furthermore, the financial burden of these preventable injuries is largely borne by the public.

The misconception of trauma reimbursement.

As health care costs increase, hospital reimbursement from trauma victims is decreasing. Thus, the number of institutions dedicated to trauma care continues to decrease in this country. Two hundred eight consecutive patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center were evaluated during a 10-month period. The total bill for 207 patients was $4,044,156, averaging $19,537 per patient. Total reimbursement 6 months after billing was $2,054,090, 51% of the total bill. Methods to improve reimbursement include increasing the ratio of blunt to penetrating trauma victims and by assembling a team knowledgeable in reimbursement options. However, because a major portion of trauma reimbursement comes under federal government regulation, topics such as diagnostic related groups and other classification criteria of critically injured patients need to be reevaluated, or underpayment for trauma patients will continue to be a national plague.

Penetrating neck trauma: sensitivity of clinical examination and cost-effectiveness of angiography.

PURPOSE: To evaluate penetrating neck trauma for (a) sensitivity of the clinical examination as an indicator of clinically significant vascular injury, and (b) cost-effectiveness of performing screening diagnostic angiography. METHODS: The medical records of all patients with penetrating neck trauma presenting at our institution over 4 years were retrospectively reviewed. Injuries were classified into one of three anatomic zones and classified into four mutually exclusive groups based on the extent of vascular injury; (a) no vascular injury; (b) minor vascular abnormality; (c) major vascular abnormality without a change in clinical management; or (d) any injury requiring a change in clinical management. Cost data were also obtained for each patient's hospitalization. RESULTS: There were 111 patients with penetrating neck trauma. No statistically significant difference between the sensitivities of the clinical examination or angiography for the detection of vascular injury were detected. Of the 48 patients who had vascular injuries, 45 had an abnormal clinical findings (93.7% sensitivity). None of the remaining 3 patients with vascular injury and normal clinical findings would have had their treatment altered by the results of angiography. The calculated cost of using angiography as a screening tool for vascular injury in patients with normal clinical findings was approximately $3.08 million per central nervous system event prevented. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in patients with zone II penetrating neck injuries the clinical examination is sufficient to detect significant vascular lesions and that screening angiography may not be indicated. Because our sample size was relatively small and the mean follow-up only 13.3 days, further investigation is needed to demonstrate definitively the lack of usefulness of screening angiography.

New concepts in the management of patients with penetrating abdominal wounds.

In the future, trauma research and care will have to become better, faster, and less expensive. Surgeons in the next millennium must be able to diagnose wounds, initiate correct procedures, and anticipate complications more accurately than before. Violent crime will not abate, nor will the proliferation of more powerful arms; these trends translate into graver traumatic wounds, giving the operating team less time to stabilize patients. Time management and team coordination are becoming key elements for patient survival, especially for patients with potentially fatal wounds, such as those to the heart. The authors have reduced the time from arrival to surgery to a few minutes. The keys to this feat are readiness, team coordination, and high morale. Financial resources will continue to be limited and allocated on a need-first basis. In the future, trauma centers will compete for dwindling funds. Technology is and always will be just a tool, whereas qualified trauma surgeons are irreplaceable, much more so than in any other surgical specialty. Observation, diagnosis, and surgery are, of course, greatly facilitated by ever-evolving technology, but since the time of Hippocrates, split-second decisions can ultimately be made only by the caregiver in the white smock. Trauma surgeons in the next millennium will have to exercise judgment based on knowledge, surgical skills, and contact with patients. To err is human, but in surgery, errors often cause death, and no machine will ever relieve surgeons of that burden.

Limited utility of emergency department thoracotomy.

To assess the therapeutic role and cost effectiveness of resuscitative thoracotomy in an urban trauma center, a retrospective review of thoracotomies (n = 273) performed in a trauma unit between 1986 and 1992 was undertaken. A total of 252 thoracotomies were performed for penetrating injuries (92%), and 21 (8%) were performed for blunt trauma. Ten neurologically intact survivors (3.7%) were identified. Mechanisms of injury in survivors were stab wound (n = 6) and gunshot wound (n = 4). There were no neurologically intact survivors when resuscitative thoracotomy was done for blunt trauma. All survivors sustained penetrating truncal injuries; isolated thoracic injuries existed in six patients, while four patients presented with both thoracic and abdominal wounds. All survivors had signs of life either in the field or in the trauma unit. Of the 242 non-survivors who had sustained penetrating trauma, only 49 had signs of life either in the field or upon arrival at the trauma unit. In this group, survival was 17 per cent. Revised Trauma Scores, calculated in the trauma unit, failed to differentiate between survivors and nonsurvivors. In 1992, the average hospital charge for resuscitative thoracotomy was $3413 per patient. Total charges during the study period for resuscitative thoracotomy were approximately $932,000. This represents an expenditure of $93,000 per successful thoracotomy. If thoracotomy was limited to patients sustaining penetrating trauma who demonstrated signs of life, total charges would be approximately $201,367, representing an expenditure of $20,137 per successful thoracotomy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)