Tertiary survey in trauma patients: avoiding neglected injuries

Tertiary Trauma Survey on Emergency Department Observational Units: A Systematic Literature Review

In today's competitive world with a fast-paced lifestyle, trauma is on the rise and is globally recognized as the leading cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability. Despite the development of major trauma centers and the introduction of advanced trauma training courses and management guidelines, there remains a substantial risk of missed or delayed diagnosis of injuries with potentially life-changing physical, emotional, and financial implications. The proportion of such incidents is potentially higher in busy emergency departments and developing countries with fewer dedicated major trauma centers or where focused emergency and trauma training and skills development is still in its infancy. In the last decade, tertiary trauma surveys have been recognized as an important re-assessment protocol in reducing such missed injuries or delayed diagnoses in patients involved in major trauma. This naturally leads to the presumption that tertiary trauma surveys could also play an important role in observational medicine. This also brings into question whether a standardized tertiary trauma survey of major trauma patients on emergency observation units could reduce missed injuries, especially in low-income countries with fewer resources and trauma expertise. Thus, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to explore the potential role of tertiary trauma survey as a tool to reducing missed or delayed diagnosis in the emergency observation units and its applicability and feasibility in less-developed healthcare systems and in low- and middle-income countries. A broad-based systematic literature review was conducted to include electronic databases, grey literature, reference lists, and bibliographies using the keywords: tertiary trauma survey, major trauma, observational medicine, emergency observation units, clinical decision unit, adult, missed injuries, and delayed diagnosis. Over 19,000 citations were identified on initial search. Following a review of abstracts, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and review of the full article, 19 publications were finally selected for the purpose of this systematic literature review. Current evidence shows a general trend that tertiary trauma surveys performed 24 hours after admission play an important role in identifying injuries missed at the time of initial primary and secondary survey, and its implementation in observational medicine could prove beneficial, especially in resource-depleted healthcare systems.

Analysis of Missed Skeletal Injuries Detected Using Whole-Body Bone Scan Applied to Trauma Patients: A Case-Control Study

(1) Background: Skeletal injuries may be missed in patients presenting multiple traumas during initial assessment. A whole-body bone scan (WBBS) may aid the detection of missed skeletal injuries, but the current level of research in this regard is insufficient. Thus, this study aimed to investigate whether a WBBS is useful for the detection of missed skeletal injuries in patients with multiple traumas. (2) Methods: This retrospective, single-region, trauma center study was conducted at a tertiary referral center from January 2015 to May 2019. The rate of missed skeletal injuries detected via WBBSs was evaluated, and factors that could influence the outcome were analyzed and divided into missed and not-missed groups. (3) Results: A total of 1658 patients with multiple traumas who underwent WBBSs were reviewed. In the missed group, the percentage of cases with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 was higher than the not-missed group (74.66% vs. 45.50%). The rate of admission route through surgery and embolization was high in the missed group. Moreover, the proportion of patients that experienced shock in the missed group was higher than that in the not-missed group (19.86% vs. 3.51%). In univariate analysis, ISS ≥ 16, admission route through surgery and embolization, orthopedic surgery involvement, and shock were related to missed skeletal injuries. ISS ≥ 16 was determined to be statistically significant in multivariate analysis. Additionally, a nomogram was constructed based on multivariable analysis. (4) Conclusions: Missed skeletal injuries were significantly associated with several statistical factors, and a WBBS can be used as a screening method to detect missed skeletal injuries in patients with multiple blunt traumas.

Prevalence of Missed Injuries in Multiple Trauma Patients at a Level-1 Trauma Center in Saudi Arabia

Background Missed injuries are defined as injuries neither detected in the emergency department (ED) nor after admission to the hospital. The objective of this research was to identify missed injury rates, contributing factors, and clinical outcomes. Methods A total of 657 trauma patients' records were retrospectively reviewed after admission to King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) during the period from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients' demographic characteristics, presence of a missed injury, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were assessed. Results Among 657 patients who were admitted to our emergency department, only 11 (1.7%) patients were reported to have a missed injury during the hospital stay. None of those missed injuries contributed to the overall mortality. Higher GCS is a protective factor for missed injury with OR=0.12-0.81 and p-value=0.01. RTS and intensive care unit (ICU) stays were borderline although p-value=0.05 and OR=9 for RTS. Both longer ICU stays and high RTS were related to a higher risk of missed injury. Conclusion In our study, the prevalence of missed injuries was on the lower end of the spectrum in comparison to multiple published data. The most common missed injuries were fractures and joint dislocations of extremities. None of those missed injuries were life-threatening or contributed to overall mortality. Higher GCS was a protective factor against missed injuries while high RTS and longer ICU stays were related to a higher likelihood of developing missed injuries during the hospital course.

Acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joint dislocations indicate severe concomitant thoracic and upper extremity injuries in severely injured patients

Preliminary studies show that clavicle fractures (CF) are known as an indicator in the severely injured for overall injury severity that are associated with relevant concomitant injuries in the thorax and upper extremity. In this regard, little data is available for the rarer injuries of the sternoclavicular and acromioclavicular joints (SCJ and ACJ, respectively). Our study will answer whether clavicular joint injuries (CJI), by analogy, have a similar relevance for the severely injured. We performed an analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU (TR-DGU). The inclusion criterion was an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 16. In the TR-DGU, the CJI were registered as one entity. The CJI group was compared with the CF and control groups (those without any clavicular injuries). Concomitant injuries were distinguished using the Abbreviated Injury Scale according to their severity. The inclusion criteria were met by n = 114,595 patients. In the case of CJI, n = 1228 patients (1.1%) were found to be less severely injured than the controls in terms of overall injury severity. Compared to the CF group (n = 12,030; 10.5%) with higher ISS than the controls, CJI cannot be assumed as an indicator for a more severe trauma; however, CF can. Concomitant injuries were more common for severe thoracic and moderate upper extremity injuries than other body parts for CJI. This finding confirms our hypothesis that CJI could be an indicator of further specific severe concomitant injuries. Despite the rather lower relevance of the CJI in the cohort of severely injured with regard to the overall injury severity, these injuries have their importance in relation to the indicator effect for thoracic concomitant injuries and concomitant injuries of the upper extremity. A limitation is the collective registration of SCJ and ACJ injuries as one entity in the TR-DGU. A distorted picture of the CJI in favor of ACJ injuries could arise from the significantly higher incidence of the ACJ dislocation compared to the SCJ. Therefore, these two injury entities should be recorded separately in the future, and prospective studies should be carried out in order to derive a standardized treatment strategy for the care of severely injured with the respective CJI.

The Impact of the Tertiary Survey in an Established Trauma Program

INTRODUCTION

The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) was first described in 1990 and is recognized as an essential practice in trauma care. The TTS remains effective in detecting secondary injuries in the modern era.

METHODS

Trauma patients discharged between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, were identified in our trauma registry. Collected data include TTS completion rates, detection of injuries, type of provider, and timing. TTS documentation was qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of 407 patients, 264 patients (65%) received a TTS. Injury detection rate was 1.1.%. Average time to TTS was 41 hours. TTS were completed by resident physicians (46%) and advanced practice providers (APPs; 46%). TTS documentation was more complete for APPs than for resident physicians.

CONCLUSION

TTS remains an integral component of modern trauma care. Ongoing education on the significance of TTS and the importance of thorough documentation is essential. Provision of real-time feedback to providers is also critical for improving current practices.

The yield of tertiary survey in patients admitted for observation after trauma

PURPOSE

Existing literature on trauma tertiary survey (TTS) focusses on multitrauma patients. This study examines the yield of the TTS in trauma patients with minor (AIS 1) or moderate (AIS 2) injury for which immediate hospitalization is not strictly indicated.

METHOD

A single center retrospective cohort study was performed in a level II trauma center. All hospitalized trauma patients with an abbreviate injury score (AIS) of one or two at the primary and secondary survey were included. The primary outcome was defined as any missed injury found during TTS (Type 1). Secondary outcomes were defined as any missed injury found after TTS but during admission (Type 2); overall missed injury rate; mortality and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Out of 388 included patients, 12 patients (3.1%) had a type 1 missed injury. ISS and alcohol consumption were associated with an increased risk for type 1 missed injuries (resp. OR = 1.4, OR = 5.49). A type 2 missed injury was only found in one patient. This concerned the only case of trauma related mortality. Approximately one out of five patients were admitted for more than 2 days. These patients were significantly older (66 vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), had a higher ISS (4 vs. 3, p = 0.007) and ASA score, 3-4 vs. 1-2 (42.5% vs. 12.6%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

TTS showed a low rate of missed injuries in trauma patients with minor or moderate injury. TTS helped to prevent serious damage in two out of 388 patients (0.5%). ISS and alcohol consumption were associated with finding missed injury during TTS.

Evidence of Prolonged Monitoring of Trauma Patients Admitted via Trauma Resuscitation Unit without Primary Proof of Severe Injuries

Introductio: Although management of severely injured patients in the Trauma Resuscitation Unit (TRU) follows evidence-based guidelines, algorithms for treatment of the slightly injured are limited. Methods: All trauma patients in a period of eight months in a Level I trauma center were followed. Retrospective analysis was performed only in patients ≥18 years with primary TRU admission, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≤ 1, Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≤ 1 and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤3 after treatment completion and ≥24 h monitoring in the units. Cochran’s Q-test was used for the statistical evaluation of AIS and ISS changes in units. Results: One hundred and twelve patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-one patients (18.75%) reported new complaints after treatment completion in the TRU. AIS rose from the Intermediate Care Unit (IMC) to Normal Care Unit (NCU) 6.2% and ISS 6.9%. MAIS did not increase >2, and no intervention was necessary for any patient. No correlation was found between computed tomography (CT) diagnostics in TRU and AIS change. Conclusions: The data suggest that AIS, MAIS and ISS did not increase significantly in patients without a severe injury during inpatient treatment, regardless of the type of CT diagnostics performed in the TRU, suggesting that monitoring of these patients may be unnecessary.

Ultrasound as point of care in management of polytrauma and its complication

PURPOSE

Traumatic injuries constitute a major risk for patients in emergency units. Point-of-care ultrasound may be a determinant in reducing the deleterious impact of complications and in prognosis.

METHODS

We describe the case of a 28-year-old female who reported cranial trauma, abdominal and thoracic trauma, and suspected bilateral fracture of the femur.

RESULTS

Ultrasound was useful for evaluating and monitoring multiple organ failure.

CONCLUSION

Combining cost-effective advantages with bedside real-time imaging, ultrasound is a powerful adjunct to standard clinical assessment in the management of polytrauma when it is administered at the point of care.

Maxillofacial and concomitant serious injuries: An eight-year single center experience

PURPOSE

Maxillofacial injuries are frequently associated with multiple trauma and can determine functional and aesthetic bad outcomes. The severity of maxillofacial injuries may be considerable and can divert clinicians' attention from other concomitant injuries which is less evident but potentially life-threatening. The aim of this study was to find out the concomitant injuries in patients referred to the Emergency Department (ED) of the University Hospital of Messina (North-East Sicily, Italy) for maxillofacial traumas.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data of 240,833 patients admitted at the ED of the University Hospital of Messina from January 2008 to December 2015 because of maxillofacial injuries leading to hospitalization and surgical treatment. Patients who primarily received treatment care at different institutions, pediatric trauma patients and adult patients who were transferred in accordance with pre-existing agreements in case of paucity of beds were excluded. Finally we included 447 (0.2%) patients over the 8 years. Data were evaluated with emphasis on epidemiology (age, gender, mechanism of trauma), primary survey and abnormalities and pattern of trauma.

RESULTS

The most frequent cause of maxillofacial trauma was road accidents (319 patients, 71.4%), among which motorcycle ones were prevalent. The maxillofacial injured who presented major lesions were 98 patients and minor lesions occurred in 349 patients; 443 (99.1%) patients underwent maxillofacial surgery, immediate or delayed depending on the severity of concomitant injuries (χ² = 557.2, p < 0.0001). Five concomitant neglected lesions were found to be associated with severe maxillofacial traumas (χ² = 17.13, p < 0.0001 vs minor lesions). All of the neglected lesions occurred in paucisymptomatic patients who showed painless abdomen, no hemodynamic instability, no signs of hematoma of anterior and posterior abdominal wall or other suspicious clinical signs and symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Among the patients admitted firstly in other surgical wards different from the Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, diagnosis was more difficult, especially for blunt abdominal traumas, in which patients showed only vague and nonspecific symptoms concealing serious and life-threatening injuries. We recommend the routine use of whole body CT scan, when the maxillofacial injuries appear prevalent, mainly in patients affected by maxillofacial major lesions.

Missed Injuries in Polytrauma Patients after Trauma Tertiary Survey in Trauma Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Injuries are often missed during the primary and secondary surveys in trauma patients. Studies have suggested that a formal tertiary survey protocol lowers the number of missed injuries. Our aim was to determine the number, severity, and consequences of injuries missed by a non-formalized trauma tertiary survey, but detected within 3 months from the date of injury in trauma patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of trauma patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit between 1 January and 17 October 2013. We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit in order to register any missed injuries, their delay, and possible consequences. We classified injuries into four types: Type 0, injury detected prior to trauma tertiary survey; Type I, injury detected by trauma tertiary survey; Type II, injury missed by trauma tertiary survey but detected prior to discharge; and Type III, injury missed by trauma tertiary survey and detected after discharge.

RESULTS

During the study period, we identified a total of 841 injuries in 115 patients. Of these injuries, 93% were Type 0 injuries, 3.9% were Type I injuries, 2.6% were Type II injuries, and 0,1% were Type III injuries. Although most of the missed injuries in trauma tertiary survey (Type II) were fractures (50%), only 2 of the 22 Type II injuries required surgical intervention. Type II injuries presumably did not cause extended length of stay in the intensive care unit or in hospital and/or morbidity.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the missed injury rate in trauma patients admitted to trauma intensive care unit after trauma tertiary survey was very low in our system without formal trauma tertiary survey protocol. These missed injuries did not lead to prolonged hospital or trauma intensive care unit stay and did not contribute to mortality. Most of the missed injuries received non-surgical treatment.

Meta-analysis of the effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Missed injuries are considered as an important issue in trauma patients and can lead to significant morbidity and even mortality. It has been shown that the standard primary and secondary surveys, recommended by the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines, are associated with missed injuries. It has been suggested that tertiary survey can minimise the number and effect of missed injuries. The present paper aimed to identify comparative evidence about the effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients.

METHODS

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies evaluating effect of tertiary survey on missed injury rate in trauma patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

Four prospective and three retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 12,581 trauma patients, were selected for analysis. Pooled odds ratio (OR) analysis of 5727 patients showed that detection of missed injuries was better in trauma patients who had tertiary survey compared to patients who did not have tertiary survey [OR=2.65, (95% CI:1.40-5.01), P=0.003]. A moderate level of heterogeneity among the studies existed (I(2)=68%, P=0.008). Also, analysis of 6,854 patients showed that fewer injuries were missed in trauma patients who had tertiary survey compared to patients who did not have tertiary survey [OR=0.63, (95% CI: 0.44-0.90), P=0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence demonstrates a constant trend in favour of tertiary survey in terms of missed injury reduction, and supports its use in management of trauma patients. Further studies are required to clarify the most cost-effective and systematic way of addressing missed injuries in the first 24h. We recommend use of "missed injury detection rate" and "missed injury rate" as two different outcomes in future studies in order to address the issue of heterogeneity in definition of missed injury in the current literature.