Variations in the management of adolescents with blunt splenic trauma in England and Wales: are we preserving enough?

The Blunt Liver and Spleen Trauma (BLAST) audit: national survey and prospective audit of children with blunt liver and spleen trauma in major trauma centres

PURPOSE

To compare the reported and observed management of UK children with blunt liver or spleen injury (BLSI) to the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) 2019 BLSI guidance.

METHODS

UK Paediatric Major Trauma Centres (pMTCs) undertook 1 year of prospective data collection on children admitted to or discussed with those centres with BLSI and an online questionnaire was distributed to all consultants who care for children with BLSI in those centres.

RESULTS

All 21/21 (100%) pMTCs participated; 131 patients were included and 100/152 (65%) consultants responded to the survey. ICU care was reported and observed to be primarily determined using haemodynamic status or concomitant injuries rather than injury grade, in accordance with APSA guidance. Bed rest was reported to be determined by grade of injury by 63% of survey respondents and observed in a similar proportion of patients. Contrary to APSA guidance, follow-up radiological assessment of the injured spleen or liver was undertaken in 44% of patients before discharge and 32% after discharge, the majority of whom were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

UK management of BLSI differs from many aspects of APSA guidance. A shift towards using clinical features to determine ICU admission and readiness for discharge is demonstrated, in line with a strong evidence base. However, routine bed rest and re-imaging after BLSI is common, contrary to APSA guidance. This disparity may exist due to concern that evidence around the incidence, presentation and natural history of complications after conservatively managed BLSI, particularly bleeding from pseudoaneurysms, is weak.

Pediatric vs Adult or Mixed Trauma Centers in Children Admitted to Hospitals Following Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Adult trauma centers (ATCs) have been shown to decrease injury mortality and morbidity in major trauma, but a synthesis of evidence for pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) is lacking.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of PTCs compared with ATCs, combined trauma centers (CTCs), or nondesignated hospitals in reducing mortality and morbidity among children admitted to hospitals following trauma.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through March 2023.

Study Selection

Studies comparing PTCs with ATCs, CTCs, or nondesignated hospitals for pediatric trauma populations (aged ≤19 years).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. A meta-analysis was conducted if more than 2 studies evaluated the same intervention-comparator-outcome and controlled minimally for age and injury severity. Subgroup analyses were planned for age, injury type and severity, trauma center designation level and verification body, country, and year of conduct. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Primary outcomes were mortality, complications, functional status, discharge destination, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resource use and processes of care, including computed tomography (CT) and operative management of blunt solid organ injury (SOI).

Results

A total of 56 studies with 286 051 participants were included overall, and 34 were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ATCs, PTCs were associated with a 41% lower risk of mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), a 52% lower risk of CT use (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89) and a 64% lower risk of operative management for blunt SOI (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). The OR for complications was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). There was no association for mortality for older children (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), and the association was closer to the null when PTCs were compared with CTCs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99). Results remained similar for other subgroup analyses. GRADE certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, results suggested that PTCs were associated with lower odds of mortality, CT use, and operative management for SOI than ATCs for children admitted to hospitals following trauma, but certainty of evidence was very low. Future studies should strive to address selection and confounding biases.

Injured patients who would benefit from expedited major trauma centre care: a consensus-based definition for the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of treating the 'right patient in the right place at the right time', there is no gold standard for defining which patients should receive expedited major trauma centre (MTC) care. This study aimed to define a reference standard applicable to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service major trauma networks.

METHODS

A one-day facilitated roundtable expert consensus meeting was conducted at the University of Sheffield, UK, in September 2019. An expert panel of 17 clinicians was purposively sampled, representing all specialities relevant to major trauma management. A consultation process was subsequently held using focus groups with Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) representatives to review and confirm the proposed reference standard.

RESULTS

Four reference standard domains were identified, comprising: need for critical interventions; presence of significant individual anatomical injuries; burden of multiple minor injuries; and important patient attributes. Specific criteria were defined for each domain. PPI consultation confirmed all aspects of the reference standard. A coding algorithm to allow operationalisation in Trauma Audit and Research Network data was also formulated, allowing classification of any case submitted to their database for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

This reference standard defines which patients would benefit from expedited MTC care. It could be used as the target for future pre-hospital injury triage tools, for setting best practice tariffs for trauma care reimbursement and to evaluate trauma network performance. Future research is recommended to compare patient characteristics, management and outcomes of the proposed definition with previously established reference standards.