Search

Once injured in the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops receive medical treatment through tiered echelons of care with varying resources, from austere to state-of-the-art. Similar to civilian trauma systems, the aim is to provide rapid and safe patient movement toward definitive management. A consequence of the rapid transfer of patients is the possibility of missed or delayed diagnosis of injuries. With the new injury patterns seen during these conflicts, we aimed to identify and characterize which injuries are missed and what consequences do they have on our troops' road to recovery.A retrospective review of a PI database (established 2007) for consecutively admitted combat casualties was performed between 2007-2013. Baseline patient characteristics, injury year, admitting service, injury type, and subsequent management decisions were categorized and analyzed.There were 301 missed injuries (MI) identified in 248 patients. The annual missed injury rate was 25 per 1000 admissions. Missed injuries were associated with a penetrating mechanism (82.7% vs 58.5%, p 0.001), ICU admission (58.5% vs 27.4%, p 0.001), higher ISS (median 14 vs 8, p 0.001), and a longer length of stay (median 3 versus 2 days, p 0.001). 194 (64.5%) missed injuries led to a change in management, with 68 (22.6%) requiring a surgical procedure. 1.3% of missed injuries were life threatening, 28.2% major and 65.4% minor. The most common injuries were distal extremity fractures (23.9%), followed by spine fractures (13.3%) and traumatic tympanic membrane rupture (12.6%), There were no deaths attributed to a missed injury.Missed injuries during combat operations occur on a low but consistent basis. Most injuries are orthopedic in nature and typically occur in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. It is rare that a missed injury results in a life-threatening condition.As healthcare practitioners prepare for future deployments, this analysis may serve as a resource to focus on frequently missed injuries and possibly improve their detection.

Background Traumatic hip dislocations (THD) are a medical emergency. There is debate whether the painful reduction of a dislocated hip should be first attempted using primary conscious sedation (PCS) or primary general anesthesia (PGA) Methods All cases of native THD from 2006 to 2015 in the trauma registry of a level 1 trauma center were reviewed. The primary outcome was successful reduction of the THD. Results 67 patients had a native, meaning not a hip prosthesis, THD. 34 (50.7%) patients had successful PCS, 12 (17.9%) failed PCS and underwent reduction following PGA. 21 (31.3%) underwent PGA. Patients in the PGA group were more severely injured. Time to reduction greater than 6 h was associated with PCS failure (Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 19.75 (2.06,189.10) p = 0.01). Conclusion Clinicians treating patients with a THD can utilize either PCS or PGA with many patients safely reduced under PCS. However, patients whose hip have been dislocated for more than 6 h are at risk for failure with PCS, and are good candidates for PGA.

BACKGROUNDTwo decades ago, hypotensive trauma patients requiring emergent laparotomy had a 40% mortality. In the interim, multiple interventions to decrease hemorrhage-related mortality have been implemented but few have any documented evidence of change in outcomes for patients requiring emergent l

Background The Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial has demonstrated that damage-control resuscitation, a massive transfusion strategy targeting a balanced delivery of plasma-platelet-red blood cell in a ratio of 1:1:1, results in improved survival at 3 hours and a reduction in deaths caused by exsanguination in the first 24 hours compared with a 1:1:2 ratio. In light of these findings, we hypothesized that patients receiving 1:1:1 ratio would have improved survival after emergency laparotomy. Methods Severely injured patients predicted to receive a massive transfusion admitted to 12 Level I North American trauma centers were randomized to 1:1:1 versus 1:1:2 as described in the PROPPR trial. From these patients, the subset that underwent an emergency laparotomy, defined previously in the literature as laparotomy within 90 minutes of arrival, were identified. We compared rates and timing of emergency laparotomy as well as postsurgical survival at 24 hours and 30 days. Results Of the 680 enrolled patients, 613 underwent a surgical procedure, 397 underwent a laparotomy, and 346 underwent an emergency laparotomy. The percentages of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were 51.5% (174 of 338) and 50.3% (172 of 342) for 1:1:1 and 1:1:2, respectively (p = 0.20). Median time to laparotomy was 28 minutes in both treatment groups. Among patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy, the proportions of patients surviving to 24 hours and 30 days were similar between treatment arms; 24-hour survival was 86.8% (151 of 174) for 1:1:1 and 83.1% (143 of 172) for 1:1:2 (p = 0.29), and 30-day survival was 79.3% (138 of 174) for 1:1:1 and 75.0% (129 of 172) for 1:1:2 (p = 0.30). Conclusion We found no evidence that resuscitation strategy affects whether a patient requires an emergency laparotomy, time to laparotomy, or subsequent survival. Level of evidence Therapeutic study, level IV.

We hypothesized that the ACA would shorten length of stay and increase numbers of insured patients without changing trauma patient outcomes.A retrospective review of adult trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center between 2012 and 2014 was performed. Demographics, length of stay, payer status, discharge disposition, and complications before and after the ACA implementation were analyzed.4448 trauma patients were admitted during the study period. Patients treated after ACA implementation were older (53 vs 51, p = 0.05) with shorter ICU stays (1.7 vs 1.5 days, p = 0.04), but longer overall hospital stays (3.7 vs 4.1 days, p 0.01). The proportion of self-pay patients decreased 11%-3% (p=0.001). A higher proportion of patients were discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNF, 17.1% vs 19.9%, p = 0.02). There was no change in rates of death, readmission, infection, pneumonia or decubiti.Among trauma patients, there was a decrease in self-pay status and increase in public insurance without change in private insurance after implementation of the ACA. More patients were discharged to SNF without changes in reported outcomes.