Delayed splenic vascular injury after nonoperative management of blunt splenic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Delayed splenic vascular injury (DSVI) is traditionally considered a rare, often clinically occult, harbinger of splenic rupture in patients with splenic trauma that are managed conservatively. The purpose of our study was to assess the incidence of DSVI and associated features in patients admitted with blunt splenic trauma and managed nonoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted over a 4-y time. Patients admitted with blunt splenic trauma, managed no-operatively and with a follow-up contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan study during admission were included. The CT scans were reviewed for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury score, amount of hemoperitoneum, and presence of DSVI. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the risk factors associated with DSVI. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (60 men and 40 women) constituted the study group. Follow-up CT scan demonstrated a 23% incidence of DSVI. Splenic artery angiography validated DSVI in 15% of the total patient population. Most DSVIs were detected only on arterial phase CT scan imaging. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury score (odds ratio = 1.73; P = 0.045) and the amount of hemoperitoneum (odds ratio = 1.90; P = 0.023) on admission CT scan were associated with the development of DSVI on follow-up CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: DSVI on follow-up CT scan imaging of patients managed nonoperatively after splenic injury is common and associated with splenic injury score assessed on admission CT scan.

MRI is unnecessary to clear the cervical spine in obtunded/comatose trauma patients: the four-year experience of a level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Cervical (C)-spine clearance protocols exist both to identify traumatic injury and to expedite rigid collar removal. Computed tomography (CT) of the C-spine in trauma patients facilitates the removal of immobilization collars in patients who are neurologically intact, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an indispensable adjunct for evaluating trauma patients with neurologic deficits. Yet, the management of patients with impaired mental status who lack neurologic deficits attributable to the spinal cord remains controversial. C-spine MRI has been suggested and employed as an imaging modality to exclude occult C-spine instability in this population of patients. However, currently available data are inconclusive as to the necessity of MRI in the C-spine clearance of obtunded or comatose trauma patients with a normal CT. METHODS: The records of patients undergoing contemporaneous CT and MRI of the C-spine in a level I trauma center from January 2003 to December 2006 were retrospectively analyzed. From this group, patients admitted with a Glasgow Coma Scale score

Predictors of acute posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms following civilian trauma: highest incidence and severity of symptoms after assault.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with significant morbidity following injury. The incidence and risk factors for PTSD are not well described in the civilian trauma population. We proposed to screen all trauma patients in the outpatient trauma clinic for acute PTSD symptoms and identify risk factors for PTSD. METHODS: We prospectively screened 1,386 injured patients who presented for follow-up in trauma clinic (January 2009 to September 2010) using an established PTSD screening test (PTSD Checklist-Civilian, PCL-C). A PCL-C score of ≥35, with a known sensitivity of >85% for PTSD, was considered screen-positive (PCL-C-POS). Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to determine independent risk factors for PCL-C-POS. RESULTS: Over 25% of trauma clinic patients met the threshold for positive PTSD screen (PCL-C-POS). The highest incidence (43%) was in patients who sustained assault (blunt or penetrating). Regression analysis revealed that age <55 years, female gender, motor vehicle collision, and assaultive mechanism (blunt or penetrating, excluding self-inflicted or accidental injury) were independent predictors of PCL-C-POS status. As the severity of symptoms increased (higher PCL-C scores), the risk associated with assaultive mechanism significantly increased in a dose-response fashion (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the high incidence of acute PTSD symptoms in trauma patients and supports the feasibility of PTSD screening in the outpatient trauma clinic. Among all mechanisms of injury, patients who sustain interpersonal violence are at the highest risk of developing acute PTSD symptoms. These results suggest that PTSD screening in outpatient trauma clinic may allow early detection and referral of patients with PTSD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Incidental radiographic findings after injury: dedicated attention results in improved capture, documentation, and management.

BACKGROUND: With liberal use of computed tomography in the diagnostic management of trauma patients, incidental findings are common and represent a major patient-care and medical-legal concern. Consequently, we began an initiative to capture, notify, and documentadequately incidental finding events with a dedicated incidental finding coordinator. We hypothesized a dedicated incidental finding coordinator would increase incidental finding capture and promote notification, follow-up, and documentation of incidental finding events. METHODS: A quality-improvement project to record and follow-up incidental findings postinjury was initiated at our level I trauma center (April 2007-March 2008, prededicated incidental finding). Because of concerns for inadequate documentation of identified incidental finding events, we implemented a dedicated incidental finding coordinator (April 2008-March 2009, postdedicated incidental finding). The dedicated incidental finding coordinator documented incidental findings daily from trauma admission radiology final reads. Incidental findings were divided into 3 groups; category 1: attention prior to discharge; category 2: follow-up with primary doctor within 2 weeks; category 3: no specific follow-up. For category 1 incidental findings, in-hospital consultation of the appropriate service was verified. On discharge, patient notification, follow-up, and documentation of events were confirmed. Certified mail or telephone contact was used to notify either the patient or the primary doctor in those who lacked appropriate notification or documentation. RESULTS: Admission rates and incidental finding categories were similar across the 2 time periods. Implementation of a dedicated incidental finding coordinator resulted in more than a 165% increase in incidental finding capture (n = 802 vs n = 302; P < .001). Patient notification was attempted, and appropriate documentation of events was confirmed in 99.8% of patients. Patient notification was verified, and follow-up was initiated in 95.8% of cases. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a dedicated incidental finding coordinator resulted in more than a 2.5-fold higher capture of incidental findings. Dedicated attention to incidental findings resulted in a near complete initiation of patient notification, follow-up, and hospital record documentation of incidental finding events. Inadequate patient notification and follow-up would delay appropriate care and potentially would result in morbidity or even mortality. A dedicated incidental finding coordinator represents a potential solution to this patient-care and medical-legal dilemma.

EMS and emergency department physician triage: injury severity in trauma patients transported by helicopter.

BACKGROUND: Many trauma patients who are not severely injured arrive at trauma centers via helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the injury severity of patients sent to trauma centers by HEMS from community emergency departments (EDs) with the injury severity of those triaged by prehospital providers to HEMS directly from accident scenes. METHODS: All records were reviewed from trauma-related missions during 1997for a single HEMS system, extracting information on location, time of day, patient age and gender, mechanism of injury, initial vital signs, Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and the extent of care required during transport. These records were then matched with outcome information routinely supplied to the HEMS system by affiliated trauma centers. Information from patients flown directly from scenes was then compared with that for patients flown from community EDs. RESULTS: Information was obtained for 658 patients flown from scenes and 345 flown from community EDs. There were similar proportions of patients in the two groups, with Injury Severity Scale (ISS) scores less than 6 (11.0% vs. 13.5%), between 6 and 14 (47.0% vs. 49.3%), and greater than 15 (42.0% vs. 37.1%); these were not statistically different (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the groups in the RTS, mean ISS score, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or disposition. CONCLUSIONS: Scene and interhospital HEMS trauma missions in this system involve patients of similar injury severities. Prehospital providers may triage trauma patients to HEMS transport with proficiency similar to that of community ED physicians.