Prospective evaluation of early missed injuries and the role of tertiary trauma survey

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.

Evaluation of Missed Radiological Diagnosis in Multiple Trauma Patients With Full-Body Computed Tomography in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

This observational, cross-sectional, and retrospective study was conducted at the Dokuz Eylül University Emergency Department in İzmir, Turkey, after obtaining ethical consent (Dokuz Eylül University Medical Faculty Ethics Committee, approval no. 2019/15-37). In this study, we aimed to determine missed radiological diagnoses and their effects on mortality and morbidity by comparing the ED diagnoses of patients and radiology reports of these patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with multiple traumas and scanned full-body computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational, cross-sectional, and retrospective study was conducted at the Dokuz Eylül University Emergency Department in İzmir, Turkey. Adult patients who presented to the ED with trauma between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018 and who had a full-body CT were included in the study. Radiology reports of CTs and ED electronic file information were compared. Missed diagnoses were determined for all body parts.

RESULTS

In this study, 1,358 patients who had scanned full-body CT in the ED were evaluated. A total of 369 diagnoses were missed in 248 (18.3%) of the patients. The diagnosis-to-patient ratio was 0.27. In the process of individually evaluating pathological diagnoses in all body regions, it was low only in brain edema, pneumomediastinum, bladder injury, and mesentery injury. At least, there was one missed diagnosis in 88 (9.7%) of 907 (66.8%) discharged patients. At least, there was one missed diagnosis in 18/23 (78.3%) patients who died within the first 48 hours. Among the patients who have missed diagnosis, the rate of the discharged patients was 35.5%, patients called back from home was 1.2%, intensive care unit admission was 20.2%, hospitalization was 65.7%, and death was 8.9%. Among the patients who did not have missed diagnosis, the rates were 73.8%, 0%, 5%, 26.9%, and 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

 Thoracic region pathologies are the most frequently missed pathologies, and orthopedics was the most frequently consulted department related to the missed diagnoses. Patients who have a missed diagnosis had lesser discharging from the ED than the other patients and had higher rates of in-hospital deaths, hospitalization, and intensive care unit admission.

The Tertiary Survey as a Quality Improvement Initiative in Pediatric Trauma Care

BACKGROUND

Patients are at risk of missed or delayed injuries in the setting of multisystem trauma, which may be identified with a tertiary trauma survey (TTS). There is limited literature to support the utilization of a TTS in pediatric trauma population. We aim to assess the impact of the TTS as a quality and performance improvement tool in identifying missed or delayed injuries and improving the quality of care among pediatric trauma population.

METHODS

A retrospective study assessing a quality improvement/performance improvement (QI/PI) project focusing on the administration of tertiary surveys to pediatric trauma patients was conducted at our level 1 trauma center between 08-2020 and 08-2021. Patients with injury severity scores (ISS) greater than 12 and/or an anticipated hospital stay greater than 72 hours met inclusion criteria and were included.

RESULTS

Of the 535 trauma patients admitted to the pediatric trauma service during the study period, 85 (16%) patients met the criteria and received a TTS. Thirteen unaddressed or undertreated injuries were found in 11 patients: 5 cervical spine injuries, 1 subdural hemorrhage, 1 bowel injury, 1 adrenal hemorrhage, 1 kidney contusion, 2 hematomas, and 2 full thickness abrasions. Following TTS, 13 patients (15%) had additional imaging, which identified 6 of the 13 injuries.

CONCLUSION

The TTS is a valuable quality and performance improvement tool in the comprehensive care of trauma patients. Standardization and implementation of a tertiary survey have the potential to facilitate the prompt detection of injuries and improve the quality of care for pediatric trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Discrepancies between Radiology Specialists and Residents in Fracture Detection from Musculoskeletal Radiographs

(1) Background: The aim of this study was to compare the competence in appendicular trauma radiograph image interpretation between radiology specialists and residents. (2) Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we collected radiology reports from radiology specialists (N = 506) and residents (N = 500) during 2018-2021. As a reference standard, we used the consensus of two subspecialty-level musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists, who reviewed all original reports. (3) Results: A total of 1006 radiograph reports were reviewed by the two subspecialty-level MSK radiologists. Out of the 1006 radiographs, 41% were abnormal. In total, 67 radiographic findings were missed (6.7%) and 31 findings were overcalled (3.1%) in the original reports. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.86, 0.92, 0.91 and 0.88 respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between radiology specialists' and residents' competence in interpretation (p = 0.44). However, radiology specialists reported more subtle cases than residents did (p = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between errors made in the morning, evening, or night shifts (p = 0.57). (4) Conclusions: This study found a lack of major discrepancies between radiology specialists and residents in radiograph interpretation, although there were differences between MSK regions and in subtle or obvious radiographic findings. In addition, missed findings found in this study often affected patient treatment. Finally, there are MSK regions where the sensitivity or specificity is below 90%, and these should raise concerns and highlight the need for double reading and should be taken into consideration in radiology education.

Accurate completion of tertiary trauma survey for inpatients at a non-trauma centre following significant trauma

INTRODUCTION

A tertiary trauma survey (TTS) is a structured, comprehensive top-to-toe examination following major trauma [1]. Literature suggests that the ideal time frame for the initial TTS should be completed within 24-hours of a patient's admission and repeated at important moments [2-4]. Evidence suggests that formal TTS reduces the rate of missed injuries by up to 38% [2].

AIMS

To determine the rate of TTS being conducted in trauma patients in a tertiary hospital without an admitting trauma service.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of adult trauma patients admitted to Middlemore Hospital (MMH) over six months. To be included, patients were either deemed to have a significant mechanism of injury or triggered a trauma call when arriving in the Emergency Department.

RESULTS

We identified 246 patients who met our criteria for requiring a TTS. 74 (30%) had a TTS completed. Of those completed, 22 (30%) were documented using a standardised form. 35 (47%) were done within the ideal timeframe (24 h); a further 21 (28%) were done within 48 h. House Officers (Junior Medical Officers) conducted the majority (80%), with the remainder being done by final-year medical students (12%), Registrars (Residents) (4%) and Consultants (Attendings) (4%). Of the 74 TTS that were completed, 21 (28%) detected a possible new injury, with 22% leading to further investigations being ordered. 14 (19%) were found to have a previously undetected, clinically significant injury on TTS (defined as 'injuries requiring further clinical intervention'). Most patients (90%) were admitted to either General Surgery or Orthopaedics. Sixty-two (54%) of patients admitted to General Surgery received a TTS; compared to just 11 (10%) admitted under Orthopaedics and 1 of 24 (4%) admitted to other specialities (including Hands, Plastics, Maxillo-Facial, Gynaecology and Medicine).

CONCLUSION

30% of patients requiring a TTS received one. 19% of TTS conducted detected clinically significant injuries.

Incidence and underreporting of osseous wrist and hand injuries on whole-body computed tomographies at a level 1 trauma center

BACKGROUND

To investigate the incidence of osseous wrist and hand injuries on whole-body computed tomographies (WBCT) at an urban maximum-care trauma center, to report the number of missed cases in primary radiology reports, and to develop an algorithm for improved detection of these injuries.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis reviewing all WBCT for a period of 8 months for osseous wrist and hand injuries. (1) Reconstruction of hands/wrists in three planes (thickness 1-2 mm) and analysis by a blinded musculoskeletal radiologist. (2) Scanning of primary radiology reports and comparison to the re-evaluation. (3) Calculation of the diagnostic accuracy of WBCT during primary reporting. (4) Search for factors potentially influencing the incidence (trauma mechanism, associated injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, artifacts). (5) Development of an algorithm to improve the detection rate.

RESULTS

Five hundred six WBCT were included between 01/2020 and 08/2020. 59 (11.7%) WBCT showed 92 osseous wrist or hand injuries. Distal intra-articular radius fractures occurred most frequently (n = 24, 26.1%); 22 patients (37.3%) showed multiple injuries. The sensitivity of WBCT in the detection of wrist and hand fractures during primary evaluation was low with 4 positive cases identified correctly (6.8%; 95% CI 1.9 to 16.5), while the specificity was 100% (95% CI 99.2 to 100.0). Forty-three cases (72.9%) were detected on additional imaging after clinical reassessment. Twelve injuries remained undetected (20.3%). Motorcycle accidents were more common in positive cases (22.0% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.006). 98% of positive cases showed additional fractures of the upper and/or lower extremities, whereas 37% of the patients without osseous wrist and hand injuries suffered such fractures (p < 0.001). The remaining investigated factors did not seem to influence the occurrence.

CONCLUSION

Osseous wrist and hand injuries are present in 11.7% on WBCT after polytrauma. 93.2% of injuries were missed primarily, resulting in a very low sensitivity of WBCT during primary reporting. Motorcycle accidents might predispose for these injuries, and they often cause additional fractures of the extremities. Clinical re-evaluation of patients and secondary re-evaluation of WBCT with preparation of dedicated multiplanar reformations are essential in polytrauma cases to detect osseous injuries of wrist and hand reliably.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered prospectively on November 17th, 2020, at the German register for clinical trials (DRKS-ID: DRKS00023589 ).

Detection of missed fractures of hand and forearm in whole-body CT in a blinded reassessment

BACKGROUND

We examined the visibility of fractures of hand and forearm in whole-body CT and its influence on delayed diagnosis. This study is based on a prior study on delayed diagnosis of fractures of hand and forearm in patients with suspected polytrauma.

METHODS

Two blinded radiologists examined CT-scans of patients with fractures of hand or forearm that were diagnosed later than 24 h after admission and control cases with unremarkable imaging of those areas. They were provided with clinical information that was documented in the admission report and were asked to examine forearm and hands. After unblinding, the visibility of fractures was determined. We examined if time of admission or slice thickness was a factor for late or missed diagnoses.

RESULTS

We included 72 known fractures in 36 cases. Of those 65 were visible. Sixteen visible fractures were diagnosed late during hospital stay. Eight more fractures were detected on revision by the radiologists. Both radiologists missed known fractures and found new fractures that were not reported by the other. Missed and late diagnoses of fractures occurred more often around 5 pm and 1 am. Slice thickness was not significantly different between fractures and cases with fractures found within 24 h and those found later.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of late diagnosis or completely missed fractures of the hand and forearm may be reduced by a repeated survey of WBCT with focus on the extremities in patients with suspected polytrauma who are not conscious.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Improving trauma tertiary survey performance and missed injury identification using an education-based quality improvement initiative

BACKGROUND

Performance of a trauma tertiary survey (TTS) reduces rates of missed injuries, but performance has been inconsistent at trauma centers. The objectives of this study were to assess whether quality improvement (QI) efforts would increase the frequency of TTS documentation and determine if TTS documentation would increase identification of traumatic injuries. Our hypothesis was that QI efforts would improve documentation of the TTS.

METHODS

Before-and-after analysis of QI interventions at a level 1 trauma center was performed. The interventions included an electronic template for TTS documentation, customized educational sessions, and emphasis from trauma leadership on TTS performance. The primary outcome was documentation of the TTS. Detection of additional injuries based on tertiary evaluation was a secondary outcome. Associations between outcomes and categorical patient and encounter characteristics were assessed using χ2 tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 592 trauma encounters were reviewed (296 preimplementation and 296 postimplementation). Trauma tertiary survey documentation was significantly higher after implementation of the interventions (30.1% preimplementation vs. 85.1% postimplementation, p < 0.001). Preimplementation documentation of the TTS was less likely earlier in the academic year (14.3% first academic quarter vs. 46.5% last academic quarter, p < 0.001), but this temporal pattern was no longer evident postimplementation (88.5% first academic quarter vs. 77.9% last academic quarter, p = 0.126). Patients were more likely to have a missed traumatic injury diagnosed on TTS postimplementation (1.7% in preimplementation vs. 5.7% postimplementation, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Documentation of the TTS and missed injury detection rates were significantly increased following implementation of a bundle of QI interventions. The association between time of year and documentation of the TTS was also attenuated, likely through reduction of the resident learning curve. Targeted efforts to improve TTS performance may improve outcomes for trauma patients at teaching hospitals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management, Level IV.

Delayed Diagnosis of Injury in Pediatric Trauma Patients at a Level I Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

Trauma care per Advanced Trauma Life Support addresses immediate threats to life. Occasionally, delays in injury diagnosis occur. Delayed diagnosis of injury (DDI) is a common quality indicator in trauma care, and pediatric DDI data are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to describe the DDI rate in a severely injured pediatric trauma population and identify any factors associated with DDI in the pediatric population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of trauma activations in 0- to 16-year-old patients admitted to a pediatric level I trauma center over 12 months with injuries prospectively recorded were followed during admission to identify DDI.

RESULTS

A total of 170 trauma activations were enrolled. Twelve patients had type I DDI (7.1%), 15 patients had type II DDI (8.8%), and 5 patients had both type I and type II DDI (2.9%). DDI patients had twice as many injuries and higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS) as non-DDI patients. DDI patients were more likely to require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, longer hospital stay, and ventilator support. Controlling for age and ISS in multivariate analysis, the number of injuries found and requiring a ventilator were significantly associated with DDI.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study found a type I DDI rate of 7.1% and a type II DDI rate of 8.8% in the pediatric population. DDI patients had a greater number of injuries, higher ISS, higher rate of ICU admission, and were more likely to require mechanical ventilation. This study adds prospective data to the pediatric DDI literature, increases provider awareness of pediatric DDI, and lays the foundation for future study and quality improvement.

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.

Missed Skeletal Trauma Detected by Whole Body Bone Scan in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

Unclear mental state is one of the major factors contributing to diagnostic failure of occult skeletal trauma in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the overlooked co-occurring skeletal trauma through whole body bone scan (WBBS) in TBI.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 547 TBI patients admitted between 2015 and 2017 was performed to investigate their cooccurring skeletal injuries detected by WBBS. The patients were divided into three groups based on the timing of suspecting skeletal trauma confirmed : 1) before WBBS (pre-WBBS); 2) after the routine WBBS (post-WBBS) with good mental state and no initial musculoskeletal complaints; and 3) after the routine WBBS with poor mental state (poor MS). The skeletal trauma detected by WBBS was classified into six skeletal categories : spine, upper and lower extremities, pelvis, chest wall, and clavicles. The skeletal injuries identified by WBBS were confirmed to be simple contusion or fractures by other imaging modalities such as X-ray or computed tomography (CT) scans. Of the six categorizations of skeletal trauma detected as hot uptake lesions in WBBS, the lesions of spine, upper and lower extremities were further statistically analyzed to calculate the incidence rates of actual fractures (AF) and actual surgery (AS) cases over the total number of hot uptake lesions in WBBS.

RESULTS

Of 547 patients with TBI, 112 patients (20.4 %) were presented with TBI alone. Four hundred and thirty-five patients with TBI had co-occurring skeletal injuries confirmed by WBBS. The incidences were as follows : chest wall (27.4%), spine (22.9%), lower extremities (20.2%), upper extremities (13.5%), pelvis (9.4%), and clavicles (6.3%). It is notable that relatively larger number of positive hot uptakes were observed in the groups of post-WBBS and poor MS. The percentage of post-WBBS group over the total hot uptake lesions in upper and lower extremities, and spines were 51.0%, 43.8%, and 41.7%, respectively, while their percentages of AS were 2.73%, 1.1%, and 0%, respectively. The percentages of poor MS group in the upper and lower extremities, and spines were 10.4%, 17.4%, and 7.8%, respectively, while their percentages of AS were 26.7%, 14.2%, and 11.1%, respectively. There was a statistical difference in the percentage of AS between the groups of post-WBBS and poor MS (p=0.000).

CONCLUSION

WBBS is a potential diagnostic tool in understanding the skeletal conditions of patients with head injuries which may be undetected during the initial assessment.

Detection of fractures of hand and forearm in whole-body CT for suspected polytrauma in intubated patients

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of whole-body CT for diagnosis of hand and forearm fractures in intubated patients with suspected polytrauma.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis on data collected from two trauma centres in Germany, including demographics, ISS, clinical symptoms, depiction in whole-body CT, and time to diagnosis.

Results

Out of 426 patients included in the study, 66 (15.5%) suffered a hand or forearm fracture. The total number of fractures was 132, the whole-body CT report mentioned 98 (74.2%). 16 (12,1%) fractures of 12 patients were diagnosed later than 24 h after admission. Late diagnoses of fractures of the hand occurred more often if the hand was not fully included in the CT scan field. The sensitivity of whole-body CT for cases with fractures of hand and/or forearm with full inclusion of the corresponding area in the scan field was 80.2%.

Conclusions

This study shows that whole-body CT is a valuable diagnostic tool for hand fractures in polytrauma patients. Hands should be evaluated regardless of clinical presentation in intubated patients after suspected polytrauma if they are included in the whole-body CT.

High delayed and missed injury rate after inter-hospital transfer of severely injured trauma patients

PURPOSE

Missed injuries are reported in 1.3-65% of all admitted trauma patients. The severely injured patient that needs a higher level of care which requires an inter-hospital transfer has an increased risk for missed injuries. The aim of this study was to establish the incidence and clinical relevance of missed injuries in severely injured patients who require inter-hospital transfer to a level 1 trauma center.

METHODS

All patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 transferred to the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) between January 2010 and July 2015 were included. Data were obtained from a prospective trauma database and supplemented with information from the patient records. A delayed diagnosis was defined as any injury detected within the first 24 h after the initial trauma, with or without a tertiary survey. Missed diagnoses were defined as any injury diagnosed after 24 h following trauma.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-one trauma patients were included. A total of 88 patients (35%) were found to have ≥ 1 new diagnoses with 65 (26%) patients that had 1 or more delayed diagnoses and 23 (9.2%) patients had 1 or more missed diagnoses (detected > 24 h after injury) after transfer to our hospital. For 47 of the 88 patients (53%), the new diagnoses required a change of management. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was the only statistically significant risk factor for a new diagnosis upon transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-hospital transfer of severely injured patients increases the risk of a delayed detection of injuries. We found that 35% of all transferred patients with an ISS ≥ 16 have at least new diagnoses, with over half of these diagnoses requiring a change of management. Given these findings, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion when receiving a transferred severely injured trauma patient.

Skeletal surveys lack efficacy in obtunded polytrauma patients

Objectives:

To evaluate if a skeletal survey protocol initiated after 48 hours of intubation will decrease time to diagnosis and the treatment of occult fractures in the obtunded polytrauma patient.

Design:

Prospective cohort trial with a retrospective cohort comparison arm.

Setting:

A single level 1 trauma center.

Patients:

Forty-seven patients were identified prospectively for the skeletal survey protocol to screen for occult fractures. The results of the new protocol were compared to a retrospective comparison arm of 46 patients who would have met the same criteria.

Intervention:

A skeletal survey protocol using 2-view x-rays of the patients’ extremities to evaluate for any occult injuries after 48 hours of intubation in trauma patients with altered mental status and an unreliable tertiary examination.

Main Outcome Measure:

Time to diagnosis of delayed fractures and surgical intervention from date of admission.

Results:

The average time to fracture diagnosis and time to surgical intervention in days was not statistically significant between the retrospective and prospective groups [fracture diagnosis: 1.6 ± 5.1 (retrospective) versus 0.5 ± 0.9 (prospective) (P = .159); time to initial surgery: 2.7 ± 5.6 (retrospective) versus 1.1 ± 1.7 (prospective) (P = .064); time to final surgery: 5.3 ± 8.5 (retrospective) versus 2.4 ± 3.0 (prospective) (P = .029)]. In addition, only 24% (4/17) of patients with a delayed fracture diagnosis required surgical intervention making most nonoperative.

Conclusions:

Given the inability to have a clinically or statistically significant impact on time to fracture diagnosis or subsequent treatment, we cannot advocate for the routine use of a skeletal survey protocol in obtunded polytrauma patients.

Level of Evidence: Level III

Missed foot fractures in multiple trauma patients

Background

Missed or underestimated injuries are one of the central problems in trauma care. Foot injuries can easily be missed because they lay beyond the regularly screened field of a trauma computer tomography scan (CT scan). During primary and secondary survey a careful examination of the extremities often becomes of secondary interest in the severely injured patient.

Methods

Thirty-four thousand ninety-one multiple trauma patients of the TraumaRegister DGU® were evaluated from 2002 to 2014. We differentiated between patients with foot injuries, patients with missed foot injuries and patients without foot injuries. Included were ankle fractures, calcaneus fractures, talus fractures, metatarsal fractures, toe fractures, amputation, soft tissue injuries and/or ligamentous injuries.

Results

Summarized evaluation of 34,091 trauma patients showed a share of 2532 patients with foot injuries. Time of diagnosis was documented in 2199 cases. 2055 patients had early diagnosed foot injuries and 144 patients had initially missed foot injuries. Missed foot injuries were especially found in patients with car accidents or fall from ≥3 m. Patients with higher Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) or lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were not significantly more affected by missed foot injuries. Missing foot injuries was also not caused by injury severity or higher age.

Conclusions

Our data highlights the need of careful evaluation of the feet during primary and secondary survey particularly when a tibia or femur fracture is diagnosed. Special attention should be turned to patients after car accidents or fall from great height. Suicide victims also need major attention. Patients with early operations also need careful examination and tertiary survey is highly recommended.

[Prehospital assessment of injury type and severity in severely injured patients by emergency physicians : An analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU®]

BACKGROUND

Prehospital assessment of injury type and severity by emergency medical services physicians impacts treatment including appropriate destination hospital selection, especially in (potentially) life-threatening cases. Injuries which are underestimated or overlooked by the emergency physician can delay adequate therapy and thus significantly influence the overall outcome. The current study used data from the TraumaRegister DGU® to evaluate the reliability of prehospital injury assessments made by emergency physicians.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of 30,777 patients from the TraumaRegister DGU® between 1993 and 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. Using the abbreviated injury scale (AIS), subjective prehospital assessments of injury severity by emergency physicians were correlated with objectively identified injuries diagnosed after admission to hospital. For this evaluation, prehospital injury assessments rated moderate or severe by the emergency physician as well as injuries diagnosed in hospital with an AIS score ≥3 points were deemed relevant.

RESULTS

The 30,777 patients with an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 9 suffered a total of 202,496 injuries and of these 26 % (51,839 out of 202,496) were considered relevant with an AIS ≥3 points. The most frequent relevant injuries were to the head (47 %) and chest (46 %). Of the 51,839 relevant injuries, the prehospital assessment by the emergency physician was accurate for 71 % and in 29 % of the cases relevant injuries were underestimated. Relevant injuries were unrecognized or underestimated in prehospital assessments for almost 1 out of every 7 cases of head trauma, almost 1 out of every 3 thoracic trauma and almost 1 out of every 2 abdominal and pelvic trauma.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of injury severity by emergency medical services physicians based on physical examination at the scene of the trauma is not very reliable. Thus, mechanisms of injury and overall presentation as well as identifiable injuries and vital parameters should be recognized by the emergency physician when considering treatment strategies and choice of appropriate destination hospital. The patient should be re-evaluated in a priority-oriented manner at the latest on arrival in the trauma room to avoid the consequences of unrecognized or underestimated injuries.

Clinical diagnosis versus autopsy diagnosis in head trauma

The correct and complete diagnosis is essential for the adequate care and the favourable clinical evolution of the patients with head trauma. Purpose: To identify the error rate in the clinical diagnosis of head injuries as shown in comparison with the autopsy diagnosis and to identify the most common sources of error. Material and method: We performed a retrospective study based on data from the medical files and the autopsy reports of patients with head trauma who died in the hospital and underwent forensic autopsy. We collected: demographic data, clinical and laboratory data and autopsy findings. To quantify the concordance rate between the clinical diagnosis of death and the autopsy diagnosis we used a 4 classes classification, which ranged from 100% concordance (C1) to total discordance (C4) and two classes of partial discordance: C2 (partial discordance in favour of the clinical diagnosis- missing injuries in the autopsy reports) and C3 (partial discordance in favor of the necroptic diagnosis- missing injuries in the medical files). Data were analyzed with SPSS version 20.0. Results: We analyzed 194 cases of death due to head injuries. We found a total concordance between the clinical death diagnosis and autopsy diagnosis in 30.4% of cases and at least one discrepancy in 69.6% of cases. Increasing the duration of hospitalization directly correlates with the amount of the imaging investigations and these in turn correlates with an increased rate of diagnosis concordance. Among the patients with stage 3 coma who associated a spinal cord injury, we found a partial diagnosis discordance in 50% of cases and a total discordance in 50% of cases, possibly due to the need for conducting emergency imaging investigation and the need for surgical treatment. In cases with partial and total discordant diagnosis, at least one lesion was omitted in 45.1% of the cases. The most commonly omitted injuries in C2 cases were subdural hematoma, intracerebral hematoma and ventricular hemorrhage (21.6%). In C3 cases the most frequently omitted injuries were subarachnoidian hemorrhage and skull base fractures (17.9%). Conclusions: The clinical cause of death is not always concordant with the autopsy diagnosis. Autopsy may identify the inconsistencies in diagnosis, the injuries frequently skipped and the factors favoring the discordance rate between the clinical death diagnosis and the autopsy diagnosis, making it a valuable tool for improving the clinical care of the patients with head trauma.

Incidence of Delayed Diagnosis of Orthopaedic Injury in Pediatric Trauma Patients

OBJECTIVE

Determine the incidence of the delayed diagnosis of orthopaedic injuries in pediatric trauma patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional retrospective analysis.

SETTING

Level I pediatric trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

All patients with an orthopaedic consultation after a trauma activation with a diagnosis of fracture, dislocation, traumatic arthrotomy, neurovascular injury, amputation, and tendon or ligament injury requiring intervention. A total of 1009 trauma codes and alerts occurred during the study period, of which 196 patients were diagnosed with an orthopaedic injury.

INTERVENTION

Charts were reviewed to obtain demographic information, time of presentation, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) on presentation, injury severity score (ISS), mechanism of injury, intubation status, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, primary and secondary survey diagnoses, discharge diagnoses, time of additional diagnoses, and reason for delayed diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of delayed diagnosis of injury (DDI).

RESULTS

There were 196 patients with a confirmed orthopaedic injury, of which, 18 were classified as a delayed diagnosis (9.18%). The mean time to detection of injury was 77.46 hours and the mean patient age was 132.22 months. One of the 18 patients required surgical intervention while the rest were treated conservatively. The mean GCS score of patients with a DDI were significantly lower than patients without a missed injury, 12 versus 14.19 (P = 0.0009). The median ISS, 21 versus 9 (P = 0.0021), and median hospital length of stay, 4 days versus 3 days (P = 0.0369) were significantly higher for patients with a missed injury compared with those without a missed injury. The intensive care unit length of stay approached significance with a median of 2 days for patients with a missed injury versus 1 day for patients without a missed injury (P = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, factors that were associated with a DDI included lower GCS, higher ISS, and greater hospital length of stay. There was only 1 missed injury that required surgical intervention, and the remainder were treated conservatively. The initial evaluation of the trauma patient is able to detect life-threatening injuries, but the tertiary survey remains an important part of patient care to detect missed injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Relevance of adjacent joint imaging in the evaluation of ankle fractures

BACKGROUND

Routinely obtaining adjacent joint radiographs when evaluating patients with ankle fractures may be of limited clinical utility and an unnecessary burden, particularly in the absence of clinical suspicion for concomitant injuries.

METHODS

One thousand, three hundred and seventy patients who sustained ankle fractures over a 5-year period presenting to two level 1 trauma centers were identified. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, physical examination findings, and radiographic information. Analyses included descriptive statistics along with sensitivity and predictive value calculations for the presence of adjacent joint fracture.

RESULTS

Adjacent joint imaging (n=1045 radiographs) of either the knee or foot was obtained in 873 patients (63.7%). Of those, 75/761 patients (9.9%) demonstrated additional fractures proximal to the ankle joint, most commonly of the proximal fibula. Twenty-two of 284 (7.7%) demonstrated additional fractures distal to the ankle joint, most commonly of the metatarsals. Tenderness to palpation demonstrated sensitivities of 0.92 and 0.77 and positive predictive values of 0.94 and 0.89 for the presence of proximal and distal fractures, respectively. Additionally, 19/22 (86.4%) of patients sustaining foot fractures had their injury detectable on initial ankle X-rays. Overall, only 5.5% (75/1370) of patients sustained fractures proximal to the ankle and only 0.2% (3/1370) of patients had additional foot fractures not evident on initial ankle X-rays.

CONCLUSION

The addition of adjacent joint imaging for the evaluation of patients sustaining ankle fractures is low yield. As such, patient history, physical examination, and clinical suspicion should direct the need for additional X-rays.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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.

Tertiary survey in polytrauma patients should be an ongoing process

INTRODUCTION

Due to prioritisation in the initial trauma care, non-life threatening injuries can be overlooked or temporally neglected. Polytrauma patients in particular might be at risk for delayed diagnosed injuries (DDI). Studies that solely focus on DDI in polytrauma patients are not available. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze DDI and determine risk factors associated with DDI in polytrauma patients.

METHODS

In this single centre retrospective cohort study, patients were considered polytrauma when the Injury Severity Score was ≥ 16 as a result of injury in at least 2 body regions. Adult polytrauma patients admitted from 2007 until 2012 were identified. Hospital charts were reviewed to identify DDI.

RESULTS

1416 polytrauma patients were analyzed of which 12% had DDI. Most DDI were found during initial hospital admission after tertiary survey (63%). Extremities were the most affected regions for all types of DDI (78%) with the highest intervention rate (35%). Most prevalent DDI were fractures of the hand (54%) and foot (38%). In 2% of all patients a DDI was found after discharge, consisting mainly of injuries other than a fracture. High energy trauma mechanism (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7), abdominal injury (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1) and extremity injuries found during initial assessment (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.6-3.3) were independent risk factors for DDI.

CONCLUSION

In polytrauma patients, most DDI were found during hospital admission but after tertiary survey. This demonstrates that the tertiary survey should be an ongoing process and thus repeated daily in polytrauma patients. Most frequent DDI were extremity injuries, especially injuries of the hand and foot.

Meta Analysis of Etiology and its Clinical and Radiological Correlation in Cases of Craniomaxillofacial Trauma

AIM

The present study was planned to investigate the etiology of injuries and to analyze correlation between clinical and radiological findings in cases of craniomaxillofacial trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

An 18 months cross-sectional study was done and 325 patients with maxillofacial fractures were analyzed from January 2013 to June 2014 who reported to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. Data was recorded in a preformed case sheet which included: patient's demographic data, cause of injury, type of injury, treatment plan.

RESULTS

Out of the 325 patients, 74.4 % were males with a male: female ratio of 2.91:1. The 21-30 year age group was found to be maximum. Road traffic accidents accounted for 71.3 %, followed by fall from height (19 %) and assault (9.5 %). Most commonly involved vehicles were two wheelers followed by public transport. Mandibular fractures (65 %) were most prevalent, followed by zygomaticomaxillary complex (44.27 %), parietal bone (48 %) and orbital fractures (21.3 %). Thirty-seven fractures (7.14 %) were missed clinically which were confirmed later by radiographic technique. Maximum were in cranium region (57 %) followed by mandible (27 %), mid face region (16.21 %). Thirty-three fractures (6.37 %) were overestimated or suspected clinically which could not be confirmed by radiographic technique. Maximum were in mandible (48.5 %) followed by mid face (36.33 %) and cranium (15.15 %).

CONCLUSION

The idea behind this article is to analyze the various trends and affecting factors and correlation between clinical and radiological findings. A better understanding of the above said would help in future treatment planning and management of facial injuries.

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.

Pediatric trauma care with computed tomography--criteria for CT scanning

Trauma centers, trauma management concepts, as well as integration of whole-body computed tomography (CT) reduced mortality significantly. The accuracy of a trauma care algorithm with emergency CT in children was evaluated. Data of 71 children with emergency CT were recorded retrospectively. In addition to epidemiological data admission date, kind of CT scan, mechanism of injury, missed diagnoses, injury severity score (ISS), admission to and time on intensive care unit (ICU), and time of hospitalization were observed. The algorithm for CT scanning was based on mechanism of injury, pattern of injury, and altered vital signs. Sixty-nine percent of the children reached the ER during on-call service hours. A percentage of 32.4 received a whole-body scan and 67.6 % a cranial scan. The mean ER ISS was 9.9 points (1-57). Children have different trauma mechanisms compared to adults. A percentage of 33.8 of the children had relevant trauma related findings in the CT scan. In 2 children, (2.8 %) 3 diagnoses (2.2 %) were initially missed. After reevaluation of the CT data, all diagnoses were identified. Thus, the accuracy of our algorithm in children was 100 %. In children, our algorithm detected all injuries, but only one third of the children had relevant trauma related findings in the CT scan. In order to reduce radiation exposure but preserve the advantages of CT, a new algorithm was developed with more flexibility taking the child's age and mental status more into account as well as clinical findings. The mechanism of injury itself is not anymore an indication for CT scanning.

What is the effect of a formalised trauma tertiary survey procedure on missed injury rates in multi-trauma patients? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Missed injury is commonly used as a quality indicator in trauma care. The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) has been proposed to reduce missed injuries. However a systematic review assessing the effect of the TTS on missed injury rates in trauma patients found only observational studies, only suggesting a possible increase in early detection and reduction in missed injuries, with significant potential biases. Therefore, more robust methods are necessary to test whether implementation of a formal TTS will increase early in-hospital injury detection, decrease delayed diagnosis and decrease missed injuries after hospital discharge.

Methods/Design

We propose a cluster-randomised, controlled trial to evaluate trauma care enhanced with a formalised TTS procedure. Currently, 20 to 25% of trauma patients routinely have a TTS performed. We expect this to increase to at least 75%. The design is for 6,380 multi-trauma patients in approximately 16 hospitals recruited over 24 months. In the first 12 months, patients will be randomised (by hospital) and allocated 1:1 to receive either the intervention (Group 1) or usual care (Group 2). The recruitment for the second 12 months will entail Group 1 hospitals continuing the TTS, and the Group 2 hospitals beginning it to enable estimates of the persistence of the intervention. The intervention is complex: implementation of formal TTS form, small group education, and executive directive to mandate both. Outcome data will be prospectively collected from (electronic) medical records and patient (telephone follow-up) questionnaires. Missed injuries will be adjudicated by a blinded expert panel. The primary outcome is missed injuries after hospital discharge; secondary outcomes are maintenance of the intervention effect, in-hospital missed injuries, tertiary survey performance rate, hospital and ICU bed days, interventions required for missed injuries, advanced diagnostic imaging requirements, readmissions to hospital, days of work and quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and mortality.

Discussion

The findings of this study may alter the delivery of international trauma care. If formal TTS is (cost-) effective this intervention should be implemented widely. If not, where already partly implemented, it should be abandoned. Study findings will be disseminated widely to relevant clinicians and health funders.

Trial registration

ANZCTR: ACTRN12613001218785, prospectively registered, 5 November 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0733-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Missed orthopaedic injuries in adult trauma patients at a major trauma centre

Introduction

Despite advances in trauma care, missed injury remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in trauma worldwide. In England, few have published their missed injury rates and there are no recent data for London. In 2010 London trauma networks were restructured and the impact on missed injury rates is not known. This study aimed to determine the incidence of missed orthopaedic injury for adult trauma patients at St George’s Hospital, London, and to analyse missed injuries and comment on risk factors.

Method

Trauma patients were recorded prospectively at the daily trauma meeting from July to September 2012. The researcher attended clinical activities and reviewed the patient notes and radiology reports daily whilst each patient was an inpatient until discharge. Missed injuries were defined as fractures or dislocations discovered more than 12 h after arrival in the emergency department. The notes for missed injury patients were reviewed again at six months. Missed injury details were recorded/analysed.

Results

Three hundred and forty three adult trauma patients were referred to trauma and orthopaedics in the three-month study period; 5 (1.5%) had a missed injury and 148 (43.1%) had an ISS>15. All missed injuries occurred in these major trauma patients, giving an incidence of 5/148 (3.4%). Four were extremity injuries and one was cervical. All missed injury patients had a GCS of 15/15, were admitted outside normal working hours, were direct admissions and had whole-body CT.

Conclusions

At 3.4% our missed injury incidence is comparable to those published from similar major trauma centres. This provides recent London data following the restructuring of trauma networks.

Diagnostic errors in the pediatric and neonatal ICU: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic errors lead to preventable hospital morbidity and mortality. ICU patients may be at particularly high risk for misdiagnosis. Little is known about misdiagnosis in pediatrics, including PICU and neonatal ICU. We sought to assess diagnostic errors in PICU and neonatal ICU settings by systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

STUDY SELECTION

We identified observational studies reporting autopsy-confirmed diagnostic errors in PICU or neonatal ICU using standard Goldman criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

We abstracted patient characteristics, diagnostic error description, rates and error classes using standard Goldman criteria for autopsy misdiagnoses and calculated descriptive statistics.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We screened 329 citations, examined 79 full-text articles, and included 13 studies (seven PICU; six neonatal ICU). The PICU studies examined a total of 1,063 deaths and 498 autopsies. Neonatal ICU studies examined a total of 2,124 neonatal deaths and 1,259 autopsies. Major diagnostic errors were found in 19.6% of autopsied PICU and neonatal ICU deaths (class I, 4.5%; class II, 15.1%). Class I (potentially lethal) misdiagnoses in the PICU (43% infections, 37% vascular) and neonatal ICU (62% infections, 21% congenital/metabolic) differed slightly. Although missed infections were most common in both settings, missed vascular events were more common in the PICU and missed congenital conditions in the neonatal ICU.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic errors in PICU/neonatal ICU populations are most commonly due to infection. Further research is needed to better quantify pediatric intensive care-related misdiagnosis and to define potential strategies to reduce their frequency or mitigate misdiagnosis-related harm.

Bone scan as a screening test for missed fractures in severely injured patients

BACKGROUND

In many cases, patients with severe blunt trauma have multiple fractures throughout the body. These fractures are not often detectable by history or physical examination, and their diagnosis can be delayed or even missed. Thus, screening test fractures of the whole body is required after initial management. We performed this study to evaluate the reliability of bone scans for detecting missed fractures in patients with multiple severe traumas and we analyzed the causes of missed fractures by using bone scan.

HYPOTHESIS

A bone scan is useful as a screening test for fractures of the entire body of severe trauma patients who are passed the acute phase.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the electronic medical records of severe trauma patients who underwent a bone scan from September 2009 to December 2010. Demographic and medical data were compared and statistically analyzed to determine whether missed fractures were detected after bone scan in the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 382 patients who had an injury severity score [ISS] greater than 16 points with multiple traumas visited the emergency room. One hundred and thirty-one patients underwent bone scan and 81 patients were identified with missed fractures by bone scan. The most frequent location for missed fractures was the rib area (55 cases, 41.98%), followed by the extremities (42 cases, 32.06%). The missed fractures that required surgery or splint were most common in extremities (11 cases). In univariate analysis, higher ISS scores and mechanism of injury were related with the probability that missed fractures would be found with a bone scan. The ISS score was statistically significant in multivariate analysis.

DISCUSSION

Bone scan is an effective method of detecting missed fractures among patients with multiple severe traumas.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective study.

Tertiary survey in trauma patients: avoiding neglected injuries

INTRODUCTION

Medical personnel in trauma centres in several countries have realised that undiagnosed injuries are common and are now focussing their attention on reducing the incidence of these injuries. Tertiary survey is a simple and easy approach to address the issue of undiagnosed injuries in trauma patients. Tertiary survey consists of reevaluating patients 24 hours after admission by means of an anamnesis protocol, physical examination, review of complementary tests and request for new tests when necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To show the importance of tertiary survey in trauma patients for diagnosing injuries undetected at the time of initial survey.

METHODS

A standardised protocol was used to perform a prospective observational study with patients admitted through the emergency department, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Santa Casa de São Paulo. The patients were reevaluated 24 hours after admission or after recovering consciousness. New physical examinations were performed, tests performed on admission were reassessed and new tests were requested, when necessary.

RESULTS

Between February 2012 and February 2013, 526 patients were evaluated, 81 (15.4%) were polytraumatised, and 445 (84.6%) had low-energy trauma. A total of 57 new injuries were diagnosed in 40 patients, 61.4% of which affected the lower limb. Diagnosis of 11 new injuries (19.3%) resulted in changes in procedure.

CONCLUSION

The application of the protocol for tertiary survey proved to be easy, inexpensive and beneficial to patients (particularly polytraumatised patients) because it enabled identification of important injuries that were not detected on admission in a large group of patients.

Damage control radiology in the severely injured patient: what the anaesthetist needs to know

In the treatment of severely injured patients, the term 'damage control radiology' has been used to parallel the modern concept of damage control surgery and the allied development of continuous damage control resuscitation from patient retrieval, through all transfers, to appropriate primary treatment. The aims of damage control radiology are (i) rapid identification of life-threatening injuries including bleeding sites, (ii) identification or exclusion of head or spinal injury, and (iii) prompt and accurate triage of patients to the operating theatre for thoracic, abdominal, or both surgeries or the angiography suite for endovascular haemorrhage control. If we are to achieve these aims, patients must have immediate access to modern multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) which is without doubt the most potent weapon in the diagnostic armamentarium. The most severely injured patients are those who have the most to benefit from early diagnosis and life-saving therapies. The traditional teaching that these patients should go immediately to surgery is challenged by technological developments in MDCT and recent clinical evidence.

A prospective evaluation of missed injuries in trauma patients, before and after formalising the trauma tertiary survey

Objective

This study prospectively evaluated in-hospital and postdischarge missed injury rates in admitted trauma patients, before and after the formalisation of a trauma tertiary survey (TTS) procedure.

Methods

Prospective before-and-after cohort study. TTS were formalised in a single regional level II trauma hospital in November 2009. All multitrauma patients admitted between March–October 2009 (preformalisation of TTS) and December 2009–September 2010 (post-) were assessed for missed injury, classified into three types: Type I, in-hospital, (injury missed at initial assessment, detected within 24 h); Type II, in-hospital (detected in hospital after 24 h, missed at initial assessment and by TTS); Type III, postdischarge (detected after hospital discharge). Secondary outcome measures included TTS performance rates and functional outcomes at 1 and 6 months.

Results

A total of 487 trauma patients were included (pre-: n = 235; post-: n = 252). In-hospital missed injury rate (Types I and II combined) was similar for both groups (3.8 vs. 4.8 %, P = 0.61), as were postdischarge missed injury rates (Type III) at 1 month (13.7 vs. 11.5 %, P = 0.43), and 6 months (3.8 vs. 3.3 %, P = 0.84) after discharge. TTS performance was substantially higher in the post-group (27 vs. 42 %, P < 0.001). Functional outcomes for both cohorts were similar at 1 and 6 months follow-up.

Conclusions

This is the first study to evaluate missed injury rates after hospital discharge and demonstrated cumulative missed injury rates >15 %. Some of these injuries were clinically relevant. Although TTS performance was significantly improved by formalising the process (from 27 to 42 %), this did not decrease missed injury rates.

Association of head, thoracic and abdominal trauma with delayed diagnosis of co-existing injuries in critical trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Management of critically injured patients is usually complicated and challenging. A structured team approach with comprehensive survey is warranted. However, delayed diagnosis of co-existing injuries that are less severe or occult might still occur, despite a standard thorough approach coupled with advances in image intervention. Clinicians are easily distracted or occupied by the more obvious or threatening conditions. We hypothesised that the major area of injured body regions might contribute to this unwanted condition.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all trauma patients admitted to our surgical intensive care units (ICU) was performed to survey the incidence of delayed diagnosis of injury (DDI) and the association between main body region injured and possibility of DDI. Demographic data and main body regions injured were compared and statistically analysed between patients with and without DDI.

RESULTS

During the two-year study period, a total 976 trauma patients admitted to our surgical ICU were included in this study. The incidence of DDI was 12.1% (118/976). Patients with DDI had higher percentages of thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic injuries (30.5%, 16.1%, and 7.6% respectively) than the non-DDI group (14.7%, 7.5%, and 3.0% respectively) (p<0.001, 0.003, and 0.024 respectively). A logistic regression model demonstrated that head (odds ratio=1.99; 95%CI=1.20-3.31), thoracic (odds ratio=2.44; 95%CI=1.55-3.86), and abdominal injuries (odds ratio=2.38; 95%CI=1.28-4.42) were independently associated with increasing DDI in patients admitted to the surgical ICU.

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, critical trauma patients admitted to the surgical ICU with these categories of injuries were more likely to have DDI. Clinicians should pay more attention to patients admitted due to injuries in these regions. More detailed and dedicated secondary and tertiary surveys should be given, with more frequent and careful re-evaluation.

Missed foot fractures in polytrauma patients: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Missed foot fractures are a known problem in the care of the traumatized patient. They do not usually have an influence on the survival, but on the long-term result and the quality of the patient's life. The aim of this study is to find out how many of these fractures are overlooked in a Level I trauma center and what the consequences for the patients are hypothesing that patients with a delayed diagnosis will have worse clinical results.

METHODS

Forty-seven patients (7.3%) with foot fractures could be identified in 642 polytrauma patients, retrospectively. All patients were divided into two groups: early diagnosed fractures and delayed diagnosed fractures, the latter defined as diagnosed after Secondary Survey. Patients were evaluated according to the Hannover Outcome Score, the Short Form-36 Health Survey, the AOFAS Score and the Hannover Scoring System. The average follow-up was 5 years and 8 months. Reasons for overlooking a foot fracture were analyzed.

RESULTS

The foot fracture was early diagnosed in 26 (55.3%) patients, but delayed in 21 (44.7%). There were no significant differences in the mean stay in the hospital or in the ICU. The fractures that were most often missed were those of the cuboid or the metarsalia. The highest risk factor for a delayed diagnosis was a fracture already diagnosed on the same foot. In 52.4% of the delayed diagosed fractures, an operative therapy was necessary. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical results.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the results of this study show that foot injuries can be a safety problem for the patient and the examination of the feet in the trauma room has to be a compulsory part of the algorithm. Although the majority of delayed diagnosed foot fractures demonstrated comparable results to the immediately diagnosed fractures, approximately 10% might have benefited from an earlier diagnosis. Even if there were no significant differences in the clinical results, we have to be aware that missing a fracture in the foot can lead to worse results in the complete polytrauma care.

Radiologic errors, past, present and future

During the 10-year period beginning in 1949 with publication of five articles in two radiology journals and UKs The Lancet, a California radiologist named L.H. Garland almost single-handedly shocked the entire medical and especially the radiologic community. He focused their attention on the fact now known and accepted by all, but at that time not previously recognized and acknowledged only with great reluctance, that a substantial degree of observer error was prevalent in radiologic interpretation. In the more than half-century that followed, Garland’s pioneering work has been affirmed and reaffirmed by numerous researchers. Retrospective studies disclosed then and still disclose today that diagnostic errors in radiologic interpretations of plain radiographic (as well as CT, MR, ultrasound, and radionuclide) images hover in the 30% range, not too dissimilar to the error rates in clinical medicine. Seventy percent of these errors are perceptual in nature, i.e., the radiologist does not “see” the abnormality on the imaging exam, perhaps due to poor conspicuity, satisfaction of search, or simply the “inexplicable psycho-visual phenomena of human perception.” The remainder are cognitive errors: the radiologist sees an abnormality but fails to render a correct diagnoses by attaching the wrong significance to what is seen, perhaps due to inadequate knowledge, or an alliterative or judgmental error. Computer-assisted detection (CAD), a technology that for the past two decades has been utilized primarily in mammographic interpretation, increases sensitivity but at the same time decreases specificity; whether it reduces errors is debatable. Efforts to reduce diagnostic radiological errors continue, but the degree to which they will be successful remains to be determined.

Tertiary assessment of trauma patients in a hospital in the city of São Paulo: a question of necessity

Objective

To minimize the occurrence of missed injuries, the tertiary evaluation was introduced consisting of reassessment of the patient, 24 hours after admission, with: complete history, physical examination, review of exams and diagnostic testing if necessary.

Methods

Observational study evaluating trauma patients admitted to a teaching hospital in São Paulo, according to a protocol for tertiary evaluation.

Results

Between February and May 2012, for 12 weeks, 182 patients were submitted to tertiary evaluation, 100 (55%) polytraumatized and 82 (45%) were victims of low-energy trauma. Neglected lesions were observed in 21 (11.5%) patients, who had 28 missed injuries. Of these 28 lesions, seven (25%) required surgical treatment.

Conclusion

Strategies including formal tertiary evaluation, the protocol applied for assessing trauma victims, seem to be beneficial in these patients, regardless of the mechanism of trauma. The method is easily applied, effective and has low cost in identifying missed injuries in the victims of trauma.

Risk stratification by injury distribution in polytrauma patients - does the clavicular fracture play a role?

Background

Thoracic and extremity injuries are common in polytraumatized patients. The clavicle limits the upper thoracic cage and connects the body and upper extremities. It is easy to examine and is visible on standard emergency room radiographs. We hypothesize that clavicular fracture in polytrauma patients indicates the presence of further injuries of the upper extremities, head, neck and thorax.

Material and methods

Retrospective study including patients admitted between 2008 and 2012 to a level-I trauma center. Inclusion criteria: ISS > 16, two or more injured body regions, clavicular fracture. Control group: patients admitted in 2011, ISS > 16, two or more injured body regions, no clavicular fracture. Patient information was obtained from the patients’ charts; evaluation of radiographic findings was performed; scoring was based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) AIS/ISS; data were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation and the Mann–Whitney U-test in SPSS (version 11.5.1); graphs were drawn using EXCEL®.

Results

Thirty-four patients with clavicular fracture (C+) and 40 without (C-) were included; the mean ISS was 25 (range 16–57), m = 70%, f = 30%; age 43.3 years (range 9–88); clavicular fractures were positively correlated with severe thoracic (p = 0.011, OR 4.5: KI 1.3–15.3), external (p < 0.001, OR 9.2: KI 2.7–30.9) and upper extremity injuries (p < 0.001, OR 33.2: KI 6.9–16.04 resp. p = 0.004, OR 12.5: KI 1.5–102.9). C + showed a lower head/neck AIS (p = 0.033), higher thorax AIS (p = 0.04), arm/shoulder AIS (p = 0.001) and external AIS (0.003) than C-. Mean hospital stay and ICU treatment time were longer in the C + group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.025 respectively).

Conclusion

A clavicular fracture can be diagnosed easily and may be used as a pointer for further thoracic and upper extremity injuries in polytrauma patients that might have been otherwise missed. Special attention should be paid on second and tertiary survey.

A closer look at orthopedic injuries associated with maxillofacial trauma

Although orthopedic injury has been reported to be the most frequent injury associated with facial trauma, their relationship has not been sufficiently evaluated in the literature. To evaluate this relationship, we compared 263 patients with concomitant facial and orthopedic injuries with 2006 patients with facial injuries alone. The rate of associated orthopedic injuries was 11.5%. Motor vehicle accidents, falls, mandibular fractures, and Le Fort I fractures increased the chance of sustaining orthopedic injuries nearly 17-, 15-, 10-, 4.4-, and 4.5-fold, respectively. Most fractures occurred in large bones with their inherent potential to cause severe, life-threatening complications. The high rates of mortality and morbidities associated with orthopedic injuries and the frequent occurrence of these injuries in patients with facial trauma emphasize upon the fact that maxillofacial surgeons, residents, and trauma nurses need more training in early diagnosis and appropriate management of associated orthopedic injuries.

Delayed diagnosis of hand injuries in polytrauma patients

Trauma patients are at high risk for delayed diagnosis of injuries, including those to the hand, with reports in the literature as high as 50%. As a result, patients may have prolonged disability and longer hospital stays with associated increased costs. Our objective was to elucidate risk factors for the delayed diagnosis of hand injuries. A review was performed from 2000 through 2009, assessing for age, sex, blood alcohol level, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), mechanism, injury type, length of stay, and timing of hand injury diagnosis. In this study, 36,568 patients were identified; 738 meeting criteria; 21.7% of patients had delayed diagnoses with 91.3% of patients diagnosed by the day after admission. Delayed diagnoses were more than 2 times higher for severely injured patients. Patients with delayed diagnoses had a lower GCS and a higher ISS and length of hospitalization. With a decreased GCS and elevated ISS, patients are at risk for delayed diagnoses of hand injuries. A focused tertiary survey is mandatory, particularly in patients with an altered mental status or with multiple injuries.

Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma

The morbidity, mortality, and economic costs resulting from trauma in general, and blunt abdominal trauma in particular, are substantial. The "panscan" (computed tomographic [CT] examination of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis) has become an essential element in the early evaluation and decision-making algorithm for hemodynamically stable patients who sustained abdominal trauma. CT has virtually replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage for the detection of important injuries. Over the past decade, substantial hardware and software developments in CT technology, especially the introduction and refinement of multidetector scanners, have expanded the versatility of CT for examination of the polytrauma patient in multiple facets: higher spatial resolution, faster image acquisition and reconstruction, and improved patient safety (optimization of radiation delivery methods). In this article, the authors review the elements of multidetector CT technique that are currently relevant for evaluating blunt abdominal trauma and describe the most important CT signs of trauma in the various organs. Because conservative nonsurgical therapy is preferred for all but the most severe injuries affecting the solid viscera, the authors emphasize the CT findings that are indications for direct therapeutic intervention.

Delayed diagnosis of injury in survivors of the February 2009 crash of flight TK 1951

INTRODUCTION

On 25th February 2009, a Boeing 737 crashed nearby Amsterdam, leaving 126 victims. In trauma patients, some injuries initially escape detection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of Delayed Diagnosis of Injury (DDI) and the tertiary survey on the victims of a plane crash, and the effect of ATLS(®) implementation on DDI incidence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from all victims were analysed with respect to hospitalisation, DDI, tertiary survey, ISS, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), injuries (number and type) and emergency intervention. Clinically significant injuries were separated from non-clinically significant injuries. The data were compared to a plane crash in the UK (1989), which occurred before ATLS(®) became widely practiced.

RESULTS

All 126 victims of the Dutch crash were evaluated in a hospital; 66 were hospitalised with a total of 171 clinically significant injuries. Twelve (7%) clinically significant DDIs were found in 8 patients (12%). In 65% of all patients, a tertiary survey was documented. The incidence of DDI in patients with an ISS ≥ 16 (n=13) was 23%, vs. 9% in patients with ISS <16. Patients with >5 injuries had a DDI incidence of 25%, vs. 12% in patients with ≤ 5 injuries. Head injury patients had a DDI incidence of 19%, patients without head injury 10%. Fifty percent of patients who needed an emergency intervention (n=4) had a DDI; 3% of patients who did not need emergency intervention. Eighty-one survivors of the UK crash had a total of 332 injuries. DDIs were found in 30.9% of the patients. Of all injuries 9.6% was a DDI. The incidence of DDI in patients with >5 injuries was 5%, vs. 8% in those with ≤ 5 injuries.

CONCLUSION

DDI in trauma still happen. In this study the incidence was 7% of the injuries in 12% of the population. In one third of the patients no tertiary survey was documented. A high ISS, head injury, more than 5 injuries and an emergency intervention were associated with DDI. The DDI incidence in our study was lower than in victims of a previous plane crash prior to ATLS implementation.

The effect of tertiary surveys on missed injuries in trauma: a systematic review

Background

Trauma tertiary surveys (TTS) are advocated to reduce the rate of missed injuries in hospitalized trauma patients. Moreover, the missed injury rate can be a quality indicator of trauma care performance. Current variation of the definition of missed injury restricts interpretation of the effect of the TTS and limits the use of missed injury for benchmarking. Only a few studies have specifically assessed the effect of the TTS on missed injury. We aimed to systematically appraise these studies using outcomes of two common definitions of missed injury rates and long-term health outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review was performed. An electronic search (without language or publication restrictions) of the Cochrane Library, Medline and Ovid was used to identify studies assessing TTS with short-term measures of missed injuries and long-term health outcomes. ‘Missed injury’ was defined as either: Type I) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and detected by the TTS; or Type II) any injury missed at primary and secondary survey and missed by the TTS, detected during hospital stay. Two authors independently selected studies. Risk of bias for observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Ten observational studies met our inclusion criteria. None was randomized and none reported long-term health outcomes. Their risk of bias varied considerably. Nine studies assessed Type I missed injury and found an overall rate of 4.3%. A single study reported Type II missed injury with a rate of 1.5%. Three studies reported outcome data on missed injuries for both control and intervention cohorts, with two reporting an increase in Type I missed injuries (3% vs. 7%, P<0.01), and one a decrease in Type II missed injuries (2.4% vs. 1.5%, P=0.01).

Conclusions

Overall Type I and Type II missed injury rates were 4.3% and 1.5%. Routine TTS performance increased Type I and reduced Type II missed injuries. However, evidence is sub-optimal: few observational studies, non-uniform outcome definitions and moderate risk of bias. Future studies should address these issues to allow for the use of missed injury rate as a quality indicator for trauma care performance and benchmarking.

Missed injuries during the initial assessment in a cohort of 1124 level-1 trauma patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the presence of diagnostic guidelines for the initial evaluation in trauma, the reported incidence of missed injuries is considerable. The aim of this study was to assess the missed injuries in a large cohort of trauma patients originating from two European Level-1 trauma centres.

METHODS

We analysed the 1124 patients included in the randomised REACT trial. Missed injuries were defined as injuries not diagnosed or suspected during initial clinical and radiological evaluation in the trauma room. We assessed the frequency, type, consequences and the phase in which the missed injuries were diagnosed and used univariate analysis to identify potential contributing factors.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and three patients were male, median age was 38 years and 1079 patients sustained blunt trauma. Overall, 122 injuries were missed in 92 patients (8.2%). Most injuries concerned the extremities. Sixteen injuries had an AIS grade of ≥ 3. Patients with missed injuries had significantly higher injury severity scores (ISSs) (median of 15 versus 5, p<0.001). Factors associated with missed injuries were severe traumatic brain injury (GCS ≤ 8) and multitrauma (ISS ≥ 16). Seventy-two missed injuries remained undetected during tertiary survey (59%). In total, 31 operations were required for 26 initially missed injuries.

CONCLUSION

Despite guidelines to avoid missed injuries, this problem is hard to prevent, especially in the severely injured. The present study showed that the rate of missed injuries was comparable with the literature and their consequences not severe. A high index of suspicion remains warranted, especially in multitrauma patients.