Do new trauma centers provide needed or redundant access? A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our prior research has demonstrated that increasing the number of trauma centers (TCs) in a state does not reliably improve state-level injury-related mortality. We hypothesized that many new TCs would serve populations already served by existing TCs, rather than in areas without ready TC access. We also hypothesized that new TCs would also be less likely to serve economically disadvantaged populations. METHODS: All state-designated adult TCs registered with the American Trauma Society in 2014 and 2019 were mapped using ArcGIS Pro (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA). Trauma centers were grouped as Level 1 or 2 (Lev12) or Level 3, 4 or 5 (Lev345). We also obtained census tract-level data (73,666 tracts), including population counts and percentage of population below the federal poverty threshold. Thirty-minute drive-time areas were created around each TC. Census tracts were considered "served" if their geographic centers were located within a 30-minute drive-time area to any TC. Data were analyzed at the census tract level. RESULTS: A total of 2,140 TCs were identified in 2019, with 256 new TCs and 151 TC closures. Eighty-two percent of new TCs were Levels 3 to 5. Nationwide, coverage increased from 75.3% of tracts served in 2014 to 78.1% in 2019, representing an increased coverage from 76.0% to 79.4% of the population. New TC served 17,532 tracts, of which 87.3% were already served. New Lev12 TCs served 9,100 tracts, of which 91.2% were already served; new Lev345 TCs served 15,728 tracts, of which 85.9% were already served. Of 2,204 newly served tracts, those served by Lev345 TCs had higher mean percentage poverty compared with those served by Lev12 TCs (15.7% vs. 13.2% poverty, p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Overall, access to trauma care has been improving in the United States. However, the majority of new TCs opened in locations with preexisting access to trauma care. Nationwide, Levels 3, 4, and 5 TCs have been responsible for expanding access to underserved populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV.

Facing the facts on prophylactic antibiotics for facial fractures: 1 day or less.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the role of initial prophylactic antibiotics on facial fractures, outcomes were compared between a short course (≤24 hours) of antibiotics to those who received an extended course (>24 hours). METHODS: Adults admitted (2010-2015) to a Level I trauma center intensive care unit with at least one facial bone fracture and major injuries isolated to the head and neck were included. Our primary analysis compared infectious complications of the head or neck (H/N infection) between patients given short or extended courses of antibiotic prophylaxis. Multivariate logistic regression and analysis of propensity score matched pairs were performed. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients were included, 85.6% had blunt injuries and 72.7% had their facial fracture managed nonoperatively. The H/N infection rate was 11.2%. Two hundred eighty patients received a short course of antibiotics and 123 patients received an extended course. Median Injury Severity Score was 14 in both groups (p = 0.78). Patients receiving an extended course of antibiotics had higher rates of H/N infection (20.3% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001). Factors associated with development of H/N infection included younger age, penetrating injury, open fracture, upper face or mandible fracture, fractures in multiple facial thirds, vascular injury, hypertension, and extended antibiotic course. Multivariate logistic regression identified younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.00; p = 0.02), multiple facial third fractures (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.4-10.2; p < 0.001), and penetrating mechanism (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.4; p = 0.003) as independent predictors of H/N infection, but not antibiotic duration. Propensity score-matched analysis found no differences in H/N infection between short and extended antibiotic courses (11.4% vs. 12.5%; p = 1.0). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no differences in H/N infection between short or extended antibiotic courses by injury pattern, mechanism, or treatment (operative or nonoperative). CONCLUSION: These results lead us to believe that we should limit antibiotics to 24 hours or less upon admission for facial fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Management of adult pancreatic injuries: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury to the pancreas is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including fistula, sepsis, and death. There are currently no practice management guidelines for the medical and surgical management of traumatic pancreatic injuries. The overall objective of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the physician who is presented with traumatic injury to the pancreas. METHODS: The MEDLINE database using PubMed was searched to identify English language articles published from January 1965 to December 2014 regarding adult patients with pancreatic injuries. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to formulate evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: Three hundred nineteen articles were identified. Of these, 52 articles underwent full text review, and 37 were selected for guideline construction. CONCLUSION: Patients with grade I/II injuries tend to have fewer complications; for these, we conditionally recommend nonoperative or nonresectional management. For grade III/IV injuries identified on computed tomography or at operation, we conditionally recommend pancreatic resection. We conditionally recommend against the routine use of octreotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula prophylaxis. No recommendations could be made regarding the following two topics: optimal surgical management of grade V injuries, and the need for routine splenectomy with distal pancreatectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.