The Dutch nationwide trauma registry: The value of capturing all acute trauma admissions.

INTRODUCTION: Twenty years ago the Dutch trauma care system was reformed by the designating 11 level one Regional trauma centres (RTCs) to organise trauma care. The RTCs set up the Dutch National Trauma Registry (DNTR) to evaluate epidemiology, patient distribution, resource use and quality of care. In this study we describe the DNTR, the incidence and main characteristics of Dutch acutely admitted trauma patients, and evaluate the value of including all acute trauma admissions compared to more stringent criteria applied by the national trauma registries of the United Kingdom and Germany. METHODS: The DNTR includes all injured patients treated at the ED within 48 hours after trauma and consecutively followed by direct admission, transfers to another hospital or death at the ED. DNTR data on admission years 2007-2018 were extracted to describe the maturation of the registry. Data from 2018 was used to describe the incidence rate and patient characteristics. Inclusion criteria of the Trauma Audit and Research (TARN) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU) were applied on 2018 DNTR data. RESULTS: Since its start in 2007 a total of 865,460 trauma cases have been registered in the DNTR. Hospital participation increased from 64% to 98%. In 2018, a total of 77,529 patients were included, the median age was 64 years, 50% males. Severely injured patients with an ISS≥16, accounted for 6% of all admissions, of which 70% was treated at designated RTCs. Patients with an ISS≤ 15were treated at non-RTCs in 80% of cases. Application of DGU or TARN inclusion criteria, resulted in inclusion of respectively 5% and 32% of the DNTR patients. Particularly children, elderly and patients admitted at non-RTCs are left out. Moreover, 50% of ISS≥16 and 68% of the fatal cases did not meet DGU inclusion criteria CONCLUSION: The DNTR has evolved into a comprehensive well-structured nationwide population-based trauma register. With 80,000 inclusions annually, the DNTR has become one of the largest trauma databases in Europe The registries strength lies in the broad inclusion criteria which enables studies on the burden of injury and the quality and efficiency of the entire trauma care system, encompassing all trauma-receiving hospitals.

Systematic review and meta-analysis for laparoscopic versus open colon surgery with or without an ERAS programme.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, conventional colorectal resection and its aftercare have increasingly become replaced by laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways, respectively. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether combining laparoscopy and ERAS have additional value within colorectal surgery. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed with two primary research questions; does laparoscopy offer an advantage when all patients receive ERAS perioperative care and does ERAS offer advantages in a laparoscopically operated patient population. All randomised and controlled clinical trials were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. RESULTS: Primary search resulted in 319 hits. After inclusion criteria were applied, three RCTs and six CCTs were included in the meta-analysis. For laparoscopically operated patients with/without ERAS, no differences in morbidity were found and postoperative hospital stay favoured ERAS (MD -2.34 [-3.77, -0.91], Z = 3.20, p = 0.001). When comparing laparoscopy and open surgery within ERAS, major morbidity was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group (OR 0.42 [0.26, 0.66], Z = 3.73, p = 0.006). Other outcome parameters showed no differences. Quality of included studies was considered moderate to poor overall with small sample sizes. CONCLUSION: When laparoscopy and ERAS are combined, major morbidity and hospital stay are reduced. The reduction in morbidity seems to be due to laparoscopy rather than ERAS, so laparoscopy by itself offers independent advantages beyond ERAS care. Quality of included studies was moderate to poor, so conclusions should be regarded with some reservations.

Comparison of three different pelvic circumferential compression devices: a biomechanical cadaver study.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic circumferential compression devices are designed to stabilize the pelvic ring and reduce the volume of the pelvis following trauma. It is uncertain whether pelvic circumferential compression devices can be safely applied for all types of pelvic fractures because the effects of the devices on the reduction of fracture fragments are unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of circumferential compression devices on the dynamic realignment and final reduction of the pelvic fractures as a measure of the quality of reduction. METHODS: Three circumferential compression devices were evaluated: the Pelvic Binder, the SAM Sling, and the T-POD. In sixteen cadavers, four fracture types were generated according to the Tile classification system. Infrared retroreflective markers were fixed in the different fracture fragments of each pelvis. The circumferential compression device was applied sequentially in a randomized order with gradually increasing forces applied. Fracture fragment movement was studied with use of a three-dimensional infrared video system. Dynamic realignment and final reduction of the fracture fragments during closure of the circumferential compression devices were determined. A factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance with pairwise post hoc comparisons was performed to analyze the differences in pulling force between the circumferential compression devices. RESULTS: In the partially stable and unstable (Tile type-B and C) pelvic fractures, all circumferential compression devices accomplished closure of the pelvic ring and consequently reduced the pelvic volume. No adverse fracture displacement (>5 mm) was observed in these fracture types. The required pulling force to attain complete reduction at the symphysis pubis varied substantially among the three different circumferential compression devices, with a mean (and standard error of the mean) of 43 ± 7 N for the T-POD, 60 ± 9 N for the Pelvic Binder, and 112 ± 10 N for the SAM Sling. CONCLUSIONS: The Pelvic Binder, SAM Sling, and T-POD provided sufficient reduction in partially stable and unstable (Tile type-B1 and C) pelvic fractures. No undesirable overreduction was noted. The pulling force that was needed to attain complete reduction of the fracture parts varied significantly among the three devices, with the T-POD requiring the lowest pulling force for fracture reduction.

Protocol compliance and time management in blunt trauma resuscitation.

OBJECTIVES: To study advanced trauma life support (ATLS) protocol adherence prospectively in trauma resuscitation and to analyse time management of daily multidisciplinary trauma resuscitation at a level 1 trauma centre, for both moderately and severely injured patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All victims of severe blunt trauma were consecutively included. Patients with a revised trauma score (RTS) of 12 were resuscitated by a "minor trauma" team and patients with an RTS of less than 12 were resuscitated by a "severe trauma" team. Digital video recordings were used to analyse protocol compliance and time management during initial assessment. RESULTS: From 1 May to 1 September 2003, 193 resuscitations were included. The "minor trauma" team assessed 119 patients, with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 7 (range 1-45). Overall protocol compliance was 42%, ranging from 0% for thoracic percussion to 93% for thoracic auscultation. The median resuscitation time was 45.9 minutes (range 39.7-55.9). The "severe team" assessed 74 patients, with a mean ISS of 22 (range 1-59). Overall protocol compliance was 53%, ranging from 4% for thoracic percussion to 95% for thoracic auscultation. Resuscitation took 34.8 minutes median (range 21.6-44.1). CONCLUSION: Results showed the current trauma resuscitation to be ATLS-like, with sometimes very low protocol compliance rates. Timing of secondary survey and radiology and thus time efficiency remains a challenge in all trauma patients. To assess the effect of trauma resuscitation protocols on outcome, protocol adherence needs to be improved.