Neurosurgical Outcomes in Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries Between Service Lines: Review of a Single Institution Database.

Severe traumatic injury (sTBI) continues to be a common source of morbidity and mortality. While there have been several advances in understanding the pathophysiology of this injury, the clinical outcome has remained grim. These trauma patients often require multidisciplinary care and are admitted to a surgical service line, depending on hospital policy. A retrospective chart review spanning 2019-2022 was completed using the electronic health record of the neurosurgery service. We identified 140 patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of eight or less, ages 18-99, who were admitted to a level-one trauma center in Southern California. Seventy patients were admitted under the neurosurgery service, while the other half were admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) service after initial assessment in the emergency department by both services to evaluate for multisystem injury. Between both groups, the injury severity scores that evaluated patients' overall injuries were not significantly different. The results demonstrate a significant difference in GCS change, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) change, and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) change between the two groups. Furthermore, the mortality rate differed between neurosurgical care and other service care by 27% and 51%, respectively, despite similar Injury Severity Scores (ISS) (p=0.0026). Therefore, this data demonstrates that a well-trained neurosurgeon with critical care experience can safely manage a severe traumatic brain injury patient with an isolated head injury as a primary service while in the intensive care unit. Since injury severity scores did not differ between these two service lines, we further theorize that this is likely due to a deep understanding of the nuances of neurosurgical pathophysiology and Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) guidelines.

Clinical effectiveness of the Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Score for limb salvage versus amputation in patients with complex limb injuries : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Clinical management of open fractures is challenging and frequently requires complex reconstruction procedures. The Gustilo-Anderson classification lacks uniform interpretation, has poor interobserver reliability, and fails to account for injuries to musculotendinous units and bone. The Ganga Hospital Open Injury Severity Score (GHOISS) was designed to address these concerns. The major aim of this review was to ascertain the evidence available on accuracy of the GHOISS in predicting successful limb salvage in patients with mangled limbs. METHODS: We searched electronic data bases including PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies that employed the GHOISS risk tool in managing complex limb injuries published from April 2006, when the score was introduced, until April 2021. Primary outcome was the measured sensitivity and specificity of the GHOISS risk tool for predicting amputation at a specified threshold score. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, need for plastic surgery, deep infection rate, time to fracture union, and functional outcome measures. Diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed using a random effects bivariate binomial model. RESULTS: We identified 1,304 records, of which six prospective cohort studies and two retrospective cohort studies evaluating a total of 788 patients were deemed eligible for inclusion. A diagnostic test meta-analysis conducted on five cohort studies, with 474 participants, showed that GHOISS at a threshold score of 14 has a pooled sensitivity of 93.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.4 to 98.2) and a specificity of 95% (95% CI 88.7 to 97.9) for predicting primary or secondary amputations in people with complex lower limb injuries. CONCLUSION: GHOISS is highly accurate in predicting success of limb salvage, and can inform management and predict secondary outcomes. However, there is a need for high-quality multicentre trials to confirm these findings and investigate the effectiveness of the score in children, and in predicting secondary amputations.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):21-28.

Correlating injury severity scores and major trauma volume using a state-wide in-patient administrative dataset linked to trauma registry data-A retrospective analysis from New South Wales Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma registries are used to analyse and report activity and benchmark quality of care at designated facilities within a trauma system. These capabilities may be enhanced with the incorporation of administrative and electronic medical record datasets, but are currently limited by the use of different injury coding systems between trauma and administrative datasets. OBJECTIVES: Use an Abbreviated Injury Scale to International Classification of Disease (AIS-ICD) mapping tool to correlate estimated injury severity scores and major trauma volume based on administrative data collections with trauma registry data. METHODS: Adult trauma cases were identified from the New South Wales Trauma Registry between 2012 and 2016 and linked probabilistically using age, facility and date of facility arrival to the Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC). Estimated Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were derived using the AIS-ICD mapping tool applied to diagnoses contained in the APDC. RESULTS: A total of eligible 13,439 cases were analysed. The overall correlation between trauma registry ISS and ISS estimated from APDC using the AIS-ICD mapping tool was low to moderate (Spearman Rho 0.41 95%CI 0.40, 0.43). Based on an estimated ISS cut-off value of 8, there was high correlation between estimated trauma volume and the number of major trauma cases at each facility (Spearman Rho 0.98, 95%CI 0.95, 0.99). Trauma Revised Injury Severity Score (TRISS) was associated with only slightly higher mortality prediction performance compared to estimated ISS (AUROC 0.76 95%CI 0.75, 0.78 versus AUROC 0.74 95%CI 0.73, 0.76). CONCLUSION: A low to moderate correlation exists between individual patient ISS scores based on AIS to ICD mapping of in-patient data collection, but a high correlation for overall major trauma volume using the AIS-ICD mapping at facility level with comparable TRISS mortality prediction.

Performance of injury severity measures in trauma research: a literature review and validation analysis of studies from low-income and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Characterisation of injury severity is an important pillar of scientific research to measure and compare the outcomes. Although majority of injury severity measures were developed in high-income countries, many have been studied in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted this study to identify and characterise all injury severity measures, describe how widely and frequently they are used in trauma research from LMICs, and summarise the evidence on their performance based on empirical and theoretical validation​ analysis. METHODS: First, a list of injury measures was identified through PubMed search. Subsequently, a systematic search of PubMed, Global Health and EMBASE was undertaken on LMIC trauma literature published from January 2006 to June 2016, in order to assess the application and performance of injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality. Studies that applied one or more global injury severity measure(s) on all types of injuries were included, with the exception of war injuries and isolated organ injuries. RESULTS: Over a span of 40 years, more than 55 injury severity measures were developed. Out of 3862 non-duplicate citations, 597 studies from 54 LMICs were listed as eligible studies. Full-text review revealed 37 studies describing performance of injury severity measures for outcome prediction. Twenty-five articles from 13 LMICs assessed the validity of at least one injury severity measure for in-hospital mortality. Injury severity score was the most commonly validated measure in LMICs, with a wide range of performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) between 0.9 and 0.65). Trauma and Injury Severity Score validation studies reported AUROC between 0.80 and 0.98. CONCLUSION: Empirical studies from LMICs frequently use injury severity measures, however, no single injury severity measure has shown a consistent result in all settings or populations and thus warrants validation studies for the diversity of LMIC population.

Abdominal injuries treated in a referral hospital: analysis of outcomes, treatment approaches, and prognostic scales. / Traumatismo abdominal en un hospital de tercer nivel. Análisis de resultados, consideraciones terapéuticas y evaluación con índices pronóstico.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the abdominal injuries treated in our hospital. We assessed the behavior and reliability of prognostic scales, analyzing the correlations between them and therapeutic decisions and outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study including all patients with major abdominal injuries admitted to our hospital between 2009 and 2015. We gathered epidemiologic and clinical data, outcomes, and scores on several prognostic scales. RESULTS: The median age of the 153 patients we identified from case records was 38 years; 73.9% were males. Most cases involved blunt trauma (94.1%) sustained in traffic accidents (60.1%). The spleen and the liver were the organs most often affected (in 44.4% and 36.6%, respectively). The median length of stay in the hospital was 11 days, and overall mortality was 13%. Although conservative management was successful in 62.7% of the cases, we found that patients who had a higher ISS (Injury Severity Score) or TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score) assessments more often required surgery or died (P=.0001, both comparisons). Those who had longer hospital stays had a higher Revised Trauma Score or TRISS (P=.001 and P=.016, respectively). CONCLUSION: . The causes of abdominal injuries and the types treated in our hospital were similar to those described for the rest of Spain. Punctuation on prognostic severity scales correlated directly with the need for surgery, length of hospital stay, complications, and mortality.

OBJETIVO: Conocer la epidemiología y distribución de los traumatismos abdominales en nuestro medio. Evaluar el comportamiento y fiabilidad de la aplicación de índices pronósticos de gravedad analizando su correlación con las decisiones terapéuticas y los resultados obtenidos. METODO: Estudio retrospectivo en el que se han incluido todos los pacientes con diagnóstico de traumatismo abdominal grave ingresados en un hospital español de referencia, entre 2009 y 2015. Se registraron variables epidemiológicas, clínicas y de resultados, así como la puntuación de distintos índices pronósticos. RESULTADOS: Muestra 153 pacientes, con mediana de edad de 38 años y predominio masculino (73,9%). Correspondieron a traumatismos de tipo cerrado (94,1%) y su etiología principal los accidentes de tráfico (60,1%). El bazo fue el órgano más frecuentemente afectado (44,4%), seguido por el hígado (36,6%). La mediana de la estancia hospitalaria fue de 11 días y la mortalidad global de 13%. Aunque el 62,7% se manejó con éxito de forma conservadora, se observó una mayor puntuación de Injury Severity Score (ISS) y Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) en aquellos pacientes que precisaron tratamiento quirúrgico (p = 0,0001), en los que fallecieron (p = 0,0001) y en aquellos con mayor estancia hospitalaria (RTS ­Reevised Trauma Score­ p = 0,001 y TRISS p = 0,016). CONCLUSIONES: La etiología de los traumatismos abdominales y los balances lesionales en nuestro medio fueron similares a los observados a nivel nacional. La puntuación en las escalas estudiadas tuvo una asociación directa con la necesidad de tratamiento quirúrgico, los días de estancia hospitalaria, la morbilidad y la mortalidad.

Assessment of clinical parameters of the polytraumatized patient as predictors of hospital expenditure and of its distribution. / Valoración de parámetros clínicos del paciente politraumatizado como predictores del gasto hospitalario y de su distribución.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic pathology continues to represent an important socio-health problem. The aim of the study was to assess the clinical predictors of total expenditure, as well as to analyze which components of the cost are modified with each clinical parameter of the polytraumatized patient. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 131 polytrauma patients registered prospectively. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess the relationship between clinical parameters, the total cost and the cost of various treatment components. RESULTS: The total cost of hospital admission was 3,791,879 euros. The average cost per patient was € 28,945. Age and gender were not predictors of cost. The scales ISS, NISS and PS were predictors of the total cost and of multiple treatment components. The AIS of Skull and Thorax predicted a higher cost of admission to ICU and Total Cost. The AIS of lower limbs was associated with greater spending on facets of treatment related to surgical activity. DISCUSSION: There are clinical parameters that are predictors of the treatment cost of the polytraumatized patient. The study describes how the type of trauma that the patient suffers modifies the type of expenses that will present in their hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Polytraumatized patients with severe multisystem injury present increased costs in multiple components of the treatment cost. Patients with TBI or chest trauma present a higher cost for admission to ICU and those with orthopaedic trauma are associated with greater expenditure on surgical activity.

Comparing traditional and novel injury scoring systems in a US level-I trauma center: an opportunity for improved injury surveillance in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: In most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the resources to accurately quantify injury severity using traditional injury scoring systems are limited. Novel injury scoring systems appear to have adequate discrimination for mortality in LMIC contexts, but they have not been rigorously compared where traditional injury scores can be accurately calculated. To determine whether novel injury scoring systems perform as well as traditional ones in a HIC with complete and comprehensive data collection. METHODS: Data from an American level-I trauma registry collected 2008-2013 were used to compare three traditional injury scoring systems: Injury Severity Score (ISS); Revised Trauma Score (RTS); and Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS); and three novel injury scoring systems: Kampala Trauma Score (KTS); Mechanism, GCS, Age and Pressure (MGAP) score; and GCS, Age and Pressure (GAP) score. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between each scoring system and mortality. Standardized regression coefficients (ß2), Akaike information criteria, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, and the calibration line intercept and slope were used to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of each model. RESULTS: Among 18,746 patients, all six scores were associated with hospital mortality. GAP had the highest effect size, and KTS had the lowest median Akaike information criteria. Although TRISS discriminated best, the discrimination of KTS approached that of TRISS and outperformed GAP, MGAP, RTS, and ISS. MGAP was best calibrated, and KTS was better calibrated than RTS, GAP, ISS, or TRISS. CONCLUSIONS: The novel injury scoring systems (KTS, MGAP, and GAP), which are more feasible to calculate in low-resource settings, discriminated hospital mortality as well as traditional injury scoring systems (ISS and RTS) and approached the discrimination of a sophisticated, data-intensive injury scoring system (TRISS) in a high-resource setting. Two novel injury scoring systems (KTS and MGAP) surpassed the calibration of TRISS. These novel injury scoring systems should be considered when clinicians and researchers wish to accurately account for injury severity. Implementation of these resource-appropriate tools in LMICs can improve injury surveillance, guiding quality improvement efforts, and supporting advocacy for resource allocation commensurate with the volume and severity of trauma.