Lesiones inadvertidas en el politraumatizado: análisis de un registro de trauma

Missed injuries in the era of the trauma scan

BACKGROUND

A rapid computed tomography technique or "trauma scan" (TS) provides high-resolution studies of the head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. We sought to determine whether TS has decreased missed injuries. A previous study of TS found a 3% missed rate.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, trauma patients from January 2001 through December 2008 were reviewed for delayed diagnosis (DD) of injury to the head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, or pelvis. Missed extremity injuries were excluded. Injury Severity Score, length of stay, type of injury, outcomes, and days to detection were captured.

RESULTS

Of 26,264 patients reviewed, 90 patients had DD, with an incidence of 0.34%. DD most commonly presented on day 2. Injuries included 16 bowel/mesentery, 12 spine, 11 pelvic, 8 spleen, 6 diaphragm, 5 clavicle, 4 scapula, 4 cervical spine, 4 intracranial, 4 sternum, 3 maxillofacial, 3 liver, 2 heart/aorta, 2 vascular, 2 urethra/bladder, 2 pneumothorax, and 2 pancreas/common bile duct. DD resulted in 1 death, 6 prolonged intensive care unit stays, 19 operative interventions, and 38 additional interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

TS is an effective way of evaluating trauma patients for intracranial, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and pelvic injuries that have the potential to impact morbidity and mortality. The incidence of injuries missed in these crucial areas has been reduced at our institution by the use of this radiographic modality. The most common missed injury remains bowel, and so a high index of suspicion and the tertiary survey must remain a mainstay of therapy.

[Gastrointestinal and mesenteric injuries in the trauma patient: incidence, diagnosis delay and prognosis]

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal and mesenteric injuries (GIMI) are uncommon in trauma patients, and their diagnosis are often delayed. Our aims were to determine the reliability of CT scan in our centre, and to assess the clinical significance of a delayed diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Retrospective analysis of cases confirmed at laparotomy. Patients were identified at the Severe Trauma Registry of Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital, between 1993 and 2006.

RESULTS

We found 105 (16.6%) GIMI out of 632 patients with abdominal trauma, in a Registry with 1495 severe trauma cases included. A total of 46% had blunt injuries. The mean injury severity score (ISS) and new ISS (NISS) were 20 and 25, respectively. There were 9 (8.5%) deaths, 4 of which were unexpected. A CT scan was performed in 56 (53%) cases, and only in 37 there were signs suggestive of a GIMI. In another 43 (41%) patients an urgent laparotomy was indicated because of positive clinical findings or instability. Surgery was delayed for more than 8 hours in 21 (20%) patients, the most common reason being a false negative result in the CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of GIMI was high in our centre (31% due to penetration and 10.7% blunt trauma). Several factors, such as the initial lack of symptoms, a low diagnostic sensitivity of the CT scan (34% false negatives), and the non-surgical management of solid organ injuries, have contributed to a delayed diagnosis and treatment in one out of each five patients in our series, but this has not led to a significant increase in septic complications in this group.

[Severe pelvic fractures, associated injuries and hemodynamic instability: incidence, management and outcome in our center]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to review the incidence, treatment and outcome of severe pelvic fractures, as well as associated injuries, in our center.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We performed a retrospective study of patients included in our trauma registry between June 1993 and January 2005. Pelvic fractures were classified according to the system proposed by Tile. Clinical and demographic data such as age, gender, mechanism of injury, transfer time, hemodynamic status, and trauma scores were compared and analyzed statistically. Shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure of < or = 90 mmHg during the primary assessment. Mortality and associated risk factors were analyzed, with emphasis on patients in shock on admission.

RESULTS

Of 1274 patients with severe trauma admitted during the study period, 192 (15%) had pelvic fracture. Only 6.7% were isolated fractures and 6% were open fractures. Twenty percent of the patients were in shock on admission. The mean Injury Severity Score of the series was 28.5 +/- 14 and that of patients in shock was 38 +/- 16. The most frequently associated injuries were thoracic (70%), abdominal (55%), long bone fractures (52%), and head injuries (40%). Twenty-three percent of the patients had retroperitoneal hematoma. Arteriograms were performed in 16 patients, with four embolizations. Eight patients underwent external orthopedic fixation, and none posterior orthopedic fixation. Five patients underwent pelvic packing and two patients underwent ligation of hypogastric arteries. Overall mortality was 30% and mortality in patients in shock was 61%. Predictors of mortality were shock on admission, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of < or = 8, ISS > 25 and age > 55 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in shock with pelvic fractures have a poor prognosis in our center, frequently related to the severity of associated injuries, the relative rarity of these fractures, and the lack of a clearly defined management protocol. The main cause of death was massive hemorrhage.

Critical care issues in the early management of severe trauma

Violent trauma and road traffic injuries kill more than 2.5 million people in the world every year, for a combined mortality of 48 deaths per 100,000 population per year. Most trauma deaths occur at the scene or in the first hour after trauma, with a proportion from 34% to 50% occurring in hospitals. Preventability of trauma deaths has been reported as high as 76% and as low as 1% in mature trauma systems. Critical care errors may occur in a half of hospital trauma deaths, in most of the cases contributing to the death. The most common critical care errors are related to airway and respiratory management, fluid resuscitation, neurotrauma diagnosis and support, and delayed diagnosis of critical lesions. A systematic approach to the trauma patient in the critical care unit would avoid errors and preventable deaths.