The role of plastic and reconstructive surgeon in trauma care: Perspectives from a Level 1 trauma centre in India.

BACKGROUND: As the morbidity and mortality due to trauma are ever increasing, there is proportionally growing need of trauma care facilities across the country. In the context of expanding designated trauma care facilities, the role of plastic and reconstructive surgeon needs to be analysed and defined at least at a Level 1 trauma centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included the patients who were operated under the department of plastic, reconstructive & burns surgery at a Level 1 urban trauma centre between January 2016 and December 2017. We analysed the demographic data and categorised operative data according to anatomical areas and interacting specialties. RESULTS: A total of 1539 procedures were performed under the division of plastic reconstructive and burn surgery. Amongst them, 81% were male, and 19% were female. Mean age was 27.3 years (range: 3-90 years). The anatomical locations treated were upper limb (49%), lower limb (35%), head and neck (8%) and trunk (8%). Interdepartmental cases were 600 and majority of them were in collaboration with orthopaedics (n = 298), general surgery (n = 163), neurosurgery (79) and maxillofacial surgery (60). CONCLUSION: There is a significant role of plastic surgeon at a Level 1 trauma centre in India. The plastic surgeon's interventions are limb saving and sometimes lifesaving, many at times morbidity of post-traumatic sequelae are either prevented or treated. Along with other core specialties involved in the management of trauma, plastic surgeons play an integral role in a Level 1 trauma centre. The policymakers should take note to augment the number of plastic surgeons at a Level 1 apex trauma centre on par with other specialties, as the workload is heavy and is steadily on an increasing trend.

Discharge Against Medical Advice in Traumatic Brain Injury: Follow-Up and Readmission Rate.

BACKGROUND: Patients who leave hospital against medical advice (AMA) may be at risk of adverse health outcomes, medical complications, and readmission. In this study, we examined the characteristics of patients who left AMA after traumatic brain injury (TBI), their rates of follow-up visits, and readmission. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 106 consecutive patients who left the tertiary trauma center AMA (1.8% of all admitted patients with a TBI). Preinjury health and social issues, mechanism of injury, computed tomography findings, and injury markers were collected. They were correlated to compliance with follow-up visits and unplanned emergency room (ER) visits and readmission rates. RESULTS: The most prevalent premorbid health or social-related issues were alcohol abuse (33%) and assault as a mechanism of trauma (33%). Only 15 (14.2%) subjects came to follow-up visit for their TBI. Sixteen (15.1%) of the 106 subjects had multiple readmissions and/or ER visits related to substance abuse. Seven (6.6%) had multiple readmissions or ER visits with psychiatric reasons. Those patients with multiple readmissions and ER visits showed in higher proportion preexisting neurological condition (p=0.027), homelessness (p=0.012), previous neurosurgery (p=0.014), preexisting encephalomalacia (p=0.011), and had a higher ISS score (p=0.014) than those who were not readmitted multiple times. CONCLUSIONS: The significantly increased risks of multiple follow-up visits and readmission among TBI patients who leave hospital AMA are related to a premorbid vulnerability and psychosocial issues. Clinicians should target AMA TBI patients with premorbid vulnerability for discharge transition interventions.

Traumatic brain injury in the elderly: A level 1 trauma centre study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the characteristics and outcome of patients with TBI over 65 years old admitted to an acute care Level 1 Trauma centre in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected on patients (n = 1812) who were admitted post-TBI to the McGill University Health Centre-Montreal General Hospital from 2000-2011. The cohort was composed of four groups over 65 years old (65-75; 76-85; 86-95; and 96 and more). Outcome measures used were the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) as well as discharge destination. RESULTS: As the patients got older, the odds of having a poor outcome increased (OR = 2.344 for those 75-85 years old, 4.313 for those 86-95 years of age and 3.465 for those aged 96 years of age or older). Also, the proportion of patients going home or going home with out-patient rehabilitation decreased as age increased (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the proportion of patients being discharged to long-term care facilities increased significantly as age increased (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This descriptive study provides a better understanding of characteristics and outcome of different age groups of patients with TBI all over 65 years old in Montreal, Canada.

Characteristics of patients with acute traumatic brain injury discharged against medical advice in a level 1 urban trauma centre.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To predict which characteristics are associated with patients at risk of discharge against medical advice (AMA). RESEARCH DESIGN: Data were retrospectively collected on individuals (n = 5642) admitted to the Traumatic Brain Injury Program of the MUHC-MGH. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Outcome measures used were length of stay (LOS), the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) as well as the Functional Independence Measure (FIM®). MAIN OUTCOMES: The overall rate of patients leaving AMA was 1.9% (n = 108). Age was negatively associated with AMA discharge (95% CI OR = [0.966;0.991]). Patients with a history of substance abuse were ∼2-times more likely to leave AMA than those not using substances before injury (95% CI OR = [1.172;3.314]) and the homeless were ∼3-times more likely to leave AMA compared to those who were not homeless (95% CI OR = [1.260;7.138]). Length of stay (LOS) was shorter for patients leaving AMA (p < 0.001) and they showed better outcome (GOSE: p < 0.001; FIM: p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the profile of patients with TBI leaving AMA hospitalized in an urban Level 1 Trauma centre will help in the development of effective strategies based on patient needs, values and pre-injury psychosocial situation to encourage them to complete their treatment course in hospital.

High voltage electrical injuries: outcomes & 1-year follow-up from a level 1 trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: High voltage (>1000 V) electric injuries (HVEI) are rare, and dreaded due to profound myonecrosis and fatal arrhythmias. Trauma Centres are well equipped for acute and definitive treatment of injuries. Paucity of burn centres in Himalayan belt make trauma centres a prudent choice for management of HVEIs. We share our experience of HVEIs managed at our Level 1 Trauma Centre. METHODS: Study conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh. Patients enrolled from prospectively maintained Trauma Registry. HVEI defined as an electrical shock from a source running current of or more than 1000 Volts. All patients admitted to department of Trauma Surgery with diagnosis of HVEIs, over 17 months (May 2019-Sept 2020) included. Demographics, clinical course, morbidity and management noted. Data is presented descriptively. RESULTS: Prevalence of HVEIs was 0.5% (n=8) among all trauma admissions; all patients were males with median age 25 years. Mode of injury accidental in 6 (75%). Seven patients (87.5%) had entry points in the upper extremity. All patients suffered thermal burns (median BSA 11%). Three patients (37.5%) had secondary fall, no concomitant injury found. Urine myoglobin & creatine kinase measured in all patients. No dysrhythmias detected in index or follow up ECGs. Four patients required emergent escharotomy, four underwent amputation. There was a median of 3 procedures per patient. Fasciotomy (n=6) and grafting (n=3) were commonest operative procedures. Multisystem involvement was seen in 3 patients. In-hospital mortality nil. CONCLUSIONS: HVEIs are rare injuries, predominantly affecting upper extremity of young males. Amputation rates approach 50% despite expeditious surgical management of extremity burn due to progressive myonecrosis. Creatine kinase and urine myoglobin did not correlate with renal failure; ECG monitoring wasn't advantageous in patients with normal index ECG in our study. Modest BSA doesnot rule out visceral damage. Delayed hollow viscus perforation is a possibility in HVEIs involving parietal wall. Vocational loss is common due to high amputation rates of affected extremity, most commonly upper limb. Trauma team is well trained to provide acute, definitive and intensive care, and level I trauma centres with their integrated services are well suited to manage victims of HVEIs in LMICs.

How prepared are Canadian trauma centres for mass casualty incidents?

OBJECTIVES: Mass Casualty Incidents (MCIs) are rare but devastating events that require extensive planning in order to minimize morbidity and mortality. There are two broad categories limiting a hospital's response: physical assets (e.g., critical care beds, operating rooms, food, communication devices) as well as operating procedures (e.g., MCI committees, regional coordination, provider training). The purpose of this study is to provide an examination of MCI preparedness according to these categories in Level 1 Trauma Centre across Canada. METHODS: This study surveyed all Level 1 Trauma Centres across Canada in order to assess the physical assets and operating procedures they had in place in the event of a hypothetical MCI on one of the busiest days of the year for trauma care. RESULTS: Of the 28 Trauma Centres contacted, 13 completed surveys (46%). Most hospitals had sufficient food (9/13) water (9/13), fuel (7/13), and communication assets (8/13) for a hypothetical MCI. A median of 38 mechanical ventilators could be mobilized. No hospitals mandated physician training for MCIs, and 6/13 centres were certain that they had a Strategic Emergency Management Plan (SEMP). Only 6/13 hospitals had dedicated MCI committees, Overall, 4/13 hospitals had explicit plans developed with community hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that physical assets are generally less limiting than operating procedures. Four key areas of potential improvement have been identified: 1) provider training (especially physicians), 2) coordination with small hospitals, 3) mechanical ventilator availability, and 4) MCI committees with explicit Strategic Emergency Management Plans.

Interpretation of emergency CT scans in polytrauma: trauma surgeon vs radiologist.

INTRODUCTION: Time is critical in the trauma setting. Emergency computed tomography (CT) scans are usually interpreted by the attending doctor and plans to manage the patient are implemented before the formal radiological report is available. This study aims to investigate the discrepancy in interpretation of emergency whole body CT scans in trauma patients by the trauma surgeon and radiologist and to determine if the difference in trauma surgeon and radiologist interpretation of emergency trauma CT scans has an impact on patient management. METHOD: This prospective observational comparative study was conducted over a 6 month period (01 April-30 September 2016) at the Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital which has a level 1 trauma department. The study population comprised 62 polytrauma patients who underwent a multiphase whole body CT scans as per the trauma imaging protocol. The trauma surgeons' initial interpretation of the CT scan and radiological report were compared. All CT scans reported by the radiology registrar were reviewed by a consultant radiologist. The time from completion of the CT scan and completion of the radiological report was analysed. RESULTS: Since the trauma surgeon accompanied the patient to radiology and reviewed the images as soon as the scan was complete, the initial interpretation of the CT was performed within 15-30 min. The median time between the CT scan completion and reporting turnaround time was 75 (16-218) min. Critical findings were missed by the trauma surgeon in 4.8% of patients (bronchial transection, abdominal aortic intimal tear and cervical spine fracture) and non-critical/incidental findings in 41.94%. The trauma surgeon correctly detected and graded visceral injury in all cases. CONCLUSION: There was no significant discrepancy in the critical findings on interpretation of whole body CT scans in polytrauma patients by the trauma surgeon and radiologist and therefore no negative impact on patient management from missed injury or misdiagnosis.The turnaround time for the radiology report does not allow for timeous management of the trauma patient.