Development of Imaging Criteria for Geriatric Blunt Trauma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Current decision tools to guide trauma computed tomography (CT) imaging were not validated for use in older patients. We hypothesized that specific clinical variables would be predictive of injury and could be used to guide imaging in this population to minimize risk of missed injury. METHODS: Blunt trauma patients aged 65 y and more admitted to a Level 1 trauma center intensive care unit from January 2018 to November 2020 were reviewed for histories, physical examination findings, and demographic information known at the time of presentation. Injuries were defined using the patient's final abbreviated injury score codes, obtained from the trauma registry. Abbreviated injury score codes were categorized by corresponding CT body region: Head, Face, Chest, C-Spine, Abdomen/Pelvis, or T/L-Spine. Variable groupings strongly predictive of injury were tested to identify models with high sensitivity and a negative predictive value. RESULTS: We included 608 patients. Median age was 77 y (interquartile range, 70-84.5) and 55% were male. Ground-level fall was the most common injury mechanism. The most commonly injured CT body regions were Head (52%) and Chest (42%). Variable groupings predictive of injury were identified in all body regions. We identified models with 97.8% sensitivity for Head and 98.8% for Face injuries. Sensitivities more than 90% were reached for all except C-Spine and Abdomen/Pelvis. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids to guide imaging for older trauma patients are needed to improve consistency and quality of care. We have identified groupings of clinical variables that are predictive of injury to guide CT imaging after geriatric blunt trauma. Further study is needed to refine and validate these models.

Transforaminal Versus Lateral Interbody Fusions for Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease in the Lumbar Spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: This study compared outcomes for patients managed with a lateral approach to interbody fusion [lateral (LLIF) or oblique (OLIF)] versus a posterior (PLIF) or transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of adjacent segment disease (ASD) above or below a prior lumbar fusion construct. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No study has compared outcomes of lateral approaches to more traditional posterior approaches for the treatment of ASD. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent single-level lateral or posterior approaches for lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic ASD between January 2010 and December 2021. Exclusion criteria included skeletal immaturity (age below 18 y old) and surgery indication for malignancy or infection. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, operative details, postoperative complications, and revision surgery profiles were collected for all patients. Standard descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Comparative statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 28.0.1.0; Chicago, IL). RESULTS: A total of 152 patients (65±10 y) were included in the study with a mean duration of follow-up of 1.6±1.4 years. The cohort included 123 PLIF/TLIF (81%), 18 LLIF (12%), 11 OLIF (7%). TLIF/PLIF experienced greater mean operative time (210±62 min vs. 184±80 OLIF/105±64 LLIF, P<0.001) and estimated blood loss (414±254 mL vs. 49±29 OLIF/36±33 LLIF, P<0.001). No significant difference in rate of postoperative complications. Postoperative radicular pain was significantly greater in OLIF (7, 64%) and LLIF (7, 39%) compared with PLIF/TLIF (16, 13%), P<0.001. No statistically significant difference in health care utilization was noted between the groups. CONCLUSION: Lateral fusions to treat ASD demonstrated no significantly different risk of complication compared with posterior approaches. Our study demonstrated significantly increased operative time and estimated blood loss for the posterior approach and an increased risk of radicular pain from manipulation/retraction of psoas following lateral approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A prospective assessment of resilience in trauma patients using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale.

BACKGROUND: Resilience, or the ability to adapt to difficult or challenging life experiences, may be an important mediator in trauma recovery. The primary aim of this study was to describe resilience levels for trauma patients using the validated Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. METHODS: Adult trauma patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center (June 2022-August 2022) were surveyed at the time of admission and by phone between 2 weeks and 1 month after the original survey to obtain follow-up scores. We utilized the validated Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score, a 25-question survey with 5 subfactors (Tenacity, Positive Outlook, Social Support, Problem Solving, and Meaning and Purpose). Each question was scored from 0 to 4 (maximum score 100, representing the highest resilience). Patient factors were collected from the electronic medical record and trauma health registry. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and multivariable linear regression were used to understand associations with Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale scores. RESULTS: We enrolled 98 patients. The median age was 50 years (interquartile range 32-67), and 74% were male sex. The baseline median Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score on admission was 88 (interquartile range 81-94). Follow-up surveys (N = 64) showed a median score of 89.5 (80-90.5) (P = non-significant). No demographic variable was significantly associated with increasing baseline Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score. Increased length of stay (ß = 1.03), insurance (ß = -7.50), and unknown race (ß = 23.69) were correlated with follow-up Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale scores. The subfactor "Meaning and Purpose" decreased at follow-up but was not statistically significant (P = .05). CONCLUSION: Validated tools that can accurately distinguish variability in resilience scores are needed for the trauma patient population to understand its relationship with long-term patient health outcomes.