Carsten Mand

Effect of the localisation of the CT scanner during trauma resuscitation on survival -- a retrospective, multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) is increasingly becoming the standard diagnostic technique during the resuscitation of severely injured patients. However, little is known about the ideal localisation of the CT scanner within the emergency setting. We intended to analyse the potential effect of the localisation of the CT scanner on outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a retrospective multicentre cohort study involving 8004 adult blunt major trauma patients out of 312 hospitals, we analysed the effect of the distance of the trauma room to the CT scanner on the outcome. Three groups were built: 1. CT in the trauma room 2. CT equal or less than 50 m away and 3. CT more than 50 m away. Using data derived from the 2007-2011 version of TraumaRegister DGU(®) and the structure data bank of the TraumaNetzwerk DGU(®) (trauma network, TNW; German Trauma Society, DGU) we determined the observed and predicted mortality and calculated the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) as well as logistic regressions. RESULTS n=8004 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: their mean age was 46.4 ± 21.0 years. 72.8% of them were male and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 28.6 ± 11.8. The overall mortality rate was 16.0%. The mean time from hospital admission to whole-body CT was 17.1 ± 12.3 min for group 1, 22.7 ± 15.5 min for group 2 and 27.7 ± 17.1 min for group 3, p<0.001. Risk adjusted SMR was 0.74 (CI 95% 0.67-0.81) in group 1, 0.81 (CI 95% 0.76-0.87) in group 2, and 0.88 (CI 95% 0.79-0.98) in group 3. SMR group 1 vs. SMR group 2: p=0.130. SMR group 2 vs. SMR group 3: p=0.170. SMR group 1 vs. SMR group 3: p=0.016. SMR groups 1+2 vs. SMR group 3: p=0.046. Comparable data were found for the subgroup analysis of Level-I trauma centres only. Logistic regression confirmed the positive effect of a close localisation of the CT to the trauma room. The odds ratio (OR) was lowest for the localisation of the CT in the trauma room (OR 0.68, CI 95% 0.54-0.86, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS It was proven for the first time that a close distance of the CT scanner to the trauma room has a significant positive effect on the probability of survival of severely injured patients. The closer the CT is located to the trauma room, the better the probability of survival. Distances of more than 50 m had a significant negative effect on the outcome. If new emergency departments are planned or rebuilt, the CT scanner should be placed less than 50 m away from or preferably in the trauma room.

Numbers of Severely Injured Patients in Germany. A Retrospective Analysis From the DGU (German Society for Trauma Surgery) Trauma Registry.

BACKGROUND Persons who sustain severe traumatic injury, i.e., those with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or above, go on to suffer major physical, emotional, and socio-economic consequences. It is important to know the incidence of severe trauma so that these patients can be cared for optimally. METHODS Data from the year 2012 on severely injured persons with an ISS of 16 or above were obtained from the trauma registry of the German Society for Trauma Surgery (DGU) and analyzed. Further information was obtained from the database of the DGU trauma network. The annual incidence of severe trauma was estimated from these data in three different ways. RESULTS An extrapolation of hospital-based data to the German population yielded a figure of 16 742 severely injured persons per year. A population-based estimate from the German federal state of Bavaria yielded a figure of 16 514/year, while an area-based extrapolation using data from 17 established networks yielded a figure of 16 554/year. We added 10% to each of these figures as a correction for assumed underreporting. We conclude that the number of persons who sustained a severe traumatic injury in Germany in 2012 lay between 18 209 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17 751-18 646) and 18 416 (95% CI: 18 156-18 695). This corresponds to an incidence of 0.02% per year. CONCLUSION Data from a prospectively maintained nationwide trauma registry were used for the first time to calculate the annual incidence of severe traumatic injury in Germany: the expected number of severely injured persons per year is 18 200-18 400. Previous extrapolations yielded values in the range of 32 500-35 300. A high variability of documentation practices among supraregional trauma centers may have distorted the estimate, along with other factors. The figures were not normalized for age or sex.

Implementation of a nationwide trauma network for the care of severely injured patients

BACKGROUND Regional differences in the care of severely injured patients remain problematic in industrial countries. METHODS In 2006, the German Society for Trauma Surgery initiated the foundation of regional networks between trauma centers in a TraumaNetwork (TNW). The TNW consisted of five major elements as follows: (a) a whitebook on the treatment of severely injured patients; (b) evidence-based guidelines (S3); (c) local audits; (d) contracts of interhospital cooperation among all participating hospitals; and (e) TraumaRegister documentation. TNW hospitals are classified according to local audit results as supraregional (STC), regional (RTC), or local (LTC) trauma centers by criteria concerning staff, equipment, admission capacity, and responsibility. RESULTS Five hundred four German trauma centers (TCs) were certified by the end of December 2012. By then, 37 regional TNWs, with a mean of 13.6 TCs, were established, covering approximately 80% of the country’s territory. Of the hospitals, 92 were acknowledged as STCs, 210 as RTCs, and 202 as LTCs. In 2012, 19,124 patients were documented by the certified TCs. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were treated in STCs, 34% in RTCs, and 9% in LTCs. The mean (SD) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was highest in STCs (21 [13]), compared with 18 (12) in RTCs and 16 (10) in LTCs. There were differences in expected mortality (based on Revised Injury Severity Classification) according to the differences in the severity of trauma among the different categories, but in all types, the expected mortality was significantly higher than the observed mortality (differences in STCs, 1.8%; RTCs, 1.4%; LTCs, 2.0%). CONCLUSION According to our findings, it is possible to successfully structure and standardize the care of severely injured patients in a nationwide trauma system. Better outcomes than expected were observed in all categories of TNW hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiologic study, level III. Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

A comparison of the treatment of severe injuries between the former East and West German States.

BACKGROUND The annual number of persons killed in road-traffic accidents in Germany declined by 36% from 2001 to 2008, yet official traffic statistics still reveal a marked difference in fatalities between the federal states of the former East and West Germany twenty years after German reunification. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from the Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie; TR-DGU). Patients receiving primary treatment that had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or above were analyzed separately depending on whether they were treated in the former East Germany or the former West Germany. RESULTS Data were obtained from a total of 26 866 road-accident trauma cases. With Berlin excluded, 2597 cases (10.2%) were from the former East Germany (EG), and 22 966 (89.9%) were from the former West Germany (WG). The percentage of the population living in these two parts of the country is 16.7% and 83.3%, respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in either the mortality of injuries (EG 15.8%, WG 15.7%) or in the standardized mortality rate (0.89 [EG] vs. 0.88 [WG]). Over the years 2002-2008, the mean time to arrival of the emergency medical services on the scene was 19 minutes (EG) vs. 17 minutes (WG), and the mean time to arrival in hospital was 76 minutes (EG) vs. 69 minutes (WG). CONCLUSION Among the hospitals whose cases are included in the TR-DGU, there is no significant difference between the former East and West Germany with respect to mortality or any other clinically relevant variable. Hypothetically, the higher rate of death from road-traffic accidents in the former East Germany, as revealed by national traffic statistics, might be attributable to a difference in the quality of care received by trauma patients, but no such difference was found. Other potential reasons for it might be poorer road conditions, more initially fatal accidents, and lower accessibility of medical care in less densely populated areas.

TraumaNetzwerk DGU®: Optimizing patient flow and management

PURPOSE Caring for severely injured trauma patients is challenging for all medical professionals involved both in the preclinical and in the clinical course of treatment. While the overall quality of care in Germany is high there still are significant regional differences remaining. Reasons are geographical and infrastructural differences as well as variations in personnel and equipment of the hospitals. METHODS To improve state-wide trauma care the German Trauma Society (DGU) initiated the TraumaNetzwerk DGU(®) (TNW) project. The TNW is based on five major components: (a) Whitebook for the treatment of severely injured patients; (b) evidence-based guidelines for the medical care of severe injury; (c) local auditing of participating hospitals; (d) contract of interhospital cooperation; (d) TraumaRegister DGU(®) documentation. RESULTS By the end of 2013, 644 German Trauma Centres (TC) had successfully passed the audit. To that date 44 regional TNWs with a mean of 13.5 TCs had been established and certified. The TNWs cover approximately 90% of the countrys surface. Of those hospitals, 2.3 were acknowledged as Supraregional TC, 5.4 as Regional TC and 6.7 as Lokal TC. Moreover, cross border TNW in cooperation with hospitals in The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria have been established. Preparing for the audit 66% of the hospitals implemented organizational changes (e.g. TraumaRegister DGU(®) documentation and interdisciplinary guidelines), while 60% introduced personnel and 21% structural (e.g. X-ray in the ER) changes. CONCLUSIONS The TraumaNetzwerk DGU(®) project combines the control of common defined standards of care for all participating hospitals (top down) and the possibility of integrating regional cooperation by forming a regional TNW (bottom up). Based on the joint approach of healthcare professionals, it is possible to structure and influence the care of severely injured patients within a nationwide trauma system.

Two-Incision Minimally Invasive Approach for the Treatment of Anterior Column Acetabular Fractures

Overview Introduction We describe an alternative to the Letournel ilioinguinal approach for anterior column acetabular fractures that is performed with a unique retraction device that decreases the rate of soft-tissue complications. Step 1: Position the Patient and Identify the Sites for the Incisions Identify the sites for both incisions with the help of an image intensifier. Step 2: Make the First Incision to Expose the Anterior Column and the Linea Terminalis (Pelvic Brim) Make the first incision to expose the central area of the fracture. Step 3: Make the Second Incision to Expose the Symphysis and the Ipsilateral Pubic Bone Make the second incision to expose the area for the distal plate fixation. Step 4: Maintain Exposure of the Linea Terminalis Using a Soft-Tissue Retraction System For better visualization, use a soft-tissue retraction system. Step 5: Reduce the Fracture Clean and reduce the fracture through the first incision. Step 6: Fix the Fracture Perform temporary and definitive fixation according to the standards for anterior acetabular fracture fixation. Step 7: Close the Wound After radiographic documentation in three views, close the wound. Results We reported the results of a case-control study of the first twenty-six patients operated on with the two-incision minimally invasive technique. Indications Contraindications Pitfalls & Challenges

Unmatched Type O RhD+ Red Blood Cells in Multiple Injured Patients

Background: Immediate supply of red blood cell (RBC) concentrates is crucial in the initial treatment of exsanguinating patients in the emergency room. General shortage of RhD- RBCs has led to protocols in which patients with unknown blood groups are initially transfused with group O, RhD+ RBCs. Limited data are available regarding the safety of such an approach. Methods: Transfusion protocols for all multiple injured patients from the regional polytrauma database were retrospectively analyzed over a period of 5 years. Data on side effects were retrieved from the local safety update registry. Follow-up data were obtained from patients with identified RhD-incompatible transfusions. Results: In total, 823 patients were registered as multiple injured in the database. An immediate transfusion of 259 units (mean number of units 4, range 1-6) group O, RhD+ RBCs was initiated in 62 of them. 14 of these patients were RhD- and received 60 units of RhD-incompatible RBCs in the emergency room. In the later course RhD- patients received additional 185 incompatible transfusions (13; 1-31). The overall seroconversion rate was 50%. No adverse outcome due to incompatible transfusion was observed. Conclusions: Initial supply with group O, RhD+ RBCs in multiple injured patients appears to be safe. Significant numbers of RhD- units can be saved for use in other patients.

Association of an In-House Blood Bank with Therapy and Outcome in Severely Injured Patients: An Analysis of 18,573 Patients from the TraumaRegister DGU®.

Introduction Hemorrhagic shock remains one of the most common causes of death in severely injured patients. It is unknown to what extent the presence of a blood bank in a trauma center influences therapy and outcome in such patients. Material and Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data from the TraumaRegister DGU® and the TraumaNetzwerk DGU®. Inclusion criteria were Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16, primarily treated patients, and hospital admission 2 years before or after the audit process. Results Complete data sets of 18,573 patients were analyzed. Of 457 hospitals included, 33.3% had an in-house blood bank. In trauma centers with a blood bank (HospBB), packed red blood cells (PRBCs) (21.0% vs. 17.4%, p < 0.001) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (13.9% vs. 10.2%, p <0.001) were transfused significantly more often than in hospitals without a blood bank (Hosp0). However, no significant difference was found for in-hospital mortality (standard mortality ratio [SMR, 0.907 vs. 0.945; p = 0.25). In patients with clinically apparent shock on admission, no difference of performed transfusions were present between HospBB and Hosp0 (PRBCs, 51.4% vs. 50.4%, p = 0.67; FFP, 32.7% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.99), and no difference in in-hospital mortality was observed (SMR, 0.907 vs. 1.004; p = 0.21). Discussion In HospBB transfusions were performed more frequently in severely injured patients without positively affecting the 24h mortality or in-house mortality. Easy access may explain a more liberal transfusion concept.

Innerklinisches Traumamanagement – Damage Control – Die Mutter vieler Strategien

Damage Control (DC) beschreibt eine Behandlungsstrategie bei schwerstverletzten Patienten. Dabei werden in der fruhen klinischen Phase der Schwerverletzten- bzw. der Polytraumaversorgung lang andauernde operative Eingriffe vermieden. Hintergrund ist, dass das stattgehabte Trauma die physiologischen Kompensationsmechanismen destabilisiert. Eine definitive, lang andauernde chirurgische Versorgung in der Fruhphase kann diese Schwachung des Organismus verstarken. Die operative Erstbehandlung dient dementsprechend in erster Linie der hamodynamischen Stabilisierung, der Kontrolle lebensbedrohlicher Verletzungen und der temporaren Stabilisierung von Frakturen und/oder Weichteilschaden. Sobald der Patient stabil ist, kann er 5–10 Tage nach Unfallereignis definitiv operativ versorgt werden. Damage Control bedeutet eine prioritatenorientierte, fokussierte, schnelle – aber zunachst nur provisorische – Versorgungsstrategie bei schwerverletzten Patienten.In diesem Artikel wird das Vorgehen entsprechend einer Damage Control Strategie detailliert dargestellt.