Observation Versus Embolization in Patients with Blunt Splenic Injury after Trauma: A Propensity Score Analysis

Background: Non-operative management (NOM) is the standard of care in hemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury after trauma. Splenic artery embolization (SAE) is reported to increase observation success rate. Studies demonstrating improved splenic salvage rates with SAE primarily compared SAE with historical controls. The aim of this study was to investigate whether SAE improves success rate compared to observation alone in contemporaneous patients with blunt splenic injury. Methods: We included adult patients with blunt splenic injury admitted to five Level 1 Trauma Centers between January 2009 and December 2012 and selected for NOM. Successful treatment was defined as splenic salvage and no splenic re-intervention. We calculated propensity scores, expressing the probability of undergoing SAE, using multivariable logistic regression and created five strata based on the quintiles of the propensity score distribution. A weighted relative risk (RR) was calculated across strata to express the chances of success with SAE. Results: Two hundred and six patients were included in the study. Treatment was successful in 180 patients: 134/146 (92 %) patients treated with observation and 48/57 (84 %) patients treated with SAE. The weighted RR for success with SAE was 1.17 (0.94-1.45); for complications, the weighted RR was 0.71 (0.41-1.22). The mean number of transfused blood products was 4.4 (SD 9.9) in the observation group versus 9.1 (SD 17.2) in the SAE group. Conclusions: After correction for confounders with propensity score stratification technique, there was no significant difference between embolization and observation alone with regard to successful treatment in patients with blunt splenic injury after trauma

The impact of regionalized trauma care on the distribution of severely injured patients in the Netherlands

Background Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. Methods All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] >= 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008-2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. Results The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63-74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. Conclusion Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital.Trauma Surger

Dutch trauma system performance: are injured patients treated at the right place?

Background: The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma centre (MTC). We aimed to evaluate patient distribution in the Dutch trauma system. Furthermore, we sought to identify factors associated with the undertriage and transport of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) to the MTC by emergency medical services (EMS).Methods: Data on all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands (2015-2016) were extracted from the Dutch national trauma registry. An ambulance driving time model was applied to calculate MTC transport times and transport times of ISS >15 patients to the closest MTC and non-MTC. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ISS >15 patients' EMS undertriage to an MTC.Results: Of the annual average of 78,123 acute trauma admissions, 4.9% had an ISS >15. The nonseverely injured patients were predominantly treated at non-MTCs (79.2%), and 65.4% of patients with an ISS >15 received primary MTC care. This rate varied across the eleven Dutch trauma networks (36.8%-88.4%) and was correlated with the transport times to an MTC (Pearson correlation -0.753, p=0.007). The trauma networks also differed in the rates of secondary transfers of ISS >15 patients to MTC hospitals (7.8% 59.3%) and definitive MTC care (43.6% - 93.2%). Factors associated with EMS undertriage of ISS >15 patients to the MTC were female sex, older age, severe thoracic and abdominal injury, and longer additional EMS transport times.Conclusions: Approximately one-third of all severely injured patients in the Netherlands are not initially treated at an MTC. Special attention needs to be directed to identifying patient groups with a high risk of undertriage. Furthermore, resources to overcome longer transport times to an MTC, including the availability of ambulance and helicopter services, may improve direct MTC care and result in a decrease in the variation of the undertriage of severely injured patients to MTCs among the Dutch trauma networks. Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to improving primary triage guidelines and instituting uniform interfacility transfer agreements. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Trauma Surger

Differences in Characteristics and Outcome of Patients with Penetrating Injuries in the USA and the Netherlands: A Multi-institutional Comparison

Introduction: The incidence and nature of penetrating injuries differ between countries. The aim of this study was to analyze characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with penetrating injuries treated at urban Level-1 trauma centers in the USA (USTC) and the Netherlands (NLTC). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 1331 adult patients (470 from five NLTC and 861 from three USTC) with truncal penetrating injuries admitted between July 2011 and December 2014 were included. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Outcome comparisons were adjusted for differences in population characteristics in multivariable analyses. Results: In USTC, gunshot wound injuries (36.1 vs. 17.4%, p < 0.001) and assaults were more frequent (91.2 vs. 77.7%, p < 0.001). ISS was higher in USTC, but the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) was comparable. In-hospital mortality was similar (5.0 vs. 3.6% in NLTC, p = 0.25). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in USTC compared to NLTC was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.35–2.54). Hospital stay length of stay was shorter in USTC (difference 0.17 days, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.05, p = 0.005), ICU admission rate was comparable (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71–1.31, p = 0.80), and ICU length of stay was longer in USTC (difference of 0.39 days, 95% CI 0.18–0.60, p < 0.0001). More USTC patients were discharged to home (86.9 vs. 80.6%, p < 0.001). Readmission rates were similar (5.6 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.17). Conclusion: Despite the higher incidence of penetrating trauma, particularly firearm-related injuries, and higher hospital volumes in the USTC compared to the NLTC, the in-hospital mortality was similar. In this study, outcome of care was not significantly influenced by differences in incidence of firearm-related injuries

Routine versus on demand removal of the syndesmotic screw; A protocol for an international randomised controlled trial (RODEO-trial)

Background: Syndesmotic injuries are common and their incidence is rising. In case of surgical fixation of the syndesmosis a metal syndesmotic screw is used most often. It is however unclear whether this screw needs to be removed routinely after the syndesmosis has healed. Traditionally the screw is removed after six to 12 weeks as it is thought to hamper ankle functional and to be a source of pain. Some studies however suggest this is only the case in a minority of patients. We therefore aim to investigate the effect of retaining the syndesmotic screw on functional outcome. Design: This is a pragmatic international multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with an acute syndesmotic injury for which a metallic syndesmotic screw was placed. Patients will be randomised to either routine removal of the syndesmotic screw or removal on demand. Primary outcome is functional recovery at 12 months measured with the Olerud-Molander Score. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain and costs. In total 194 patients will be needed to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two interventions at 80% power and a significance level of 0.025 including 15% loss to follow-up. Discussion: If removal on demand of the syndesmotic screw is non-inferior to routine removal in terms of functional outcome, this will offer a strong argument to adopt this as standard practice of care. This means that patients will not have to undergo a secondary procedure, leading to less complications and subsequent lower costs. Trial registration: This study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5965), Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02896998) on July 15th 2016

The Dutch nationwide trauma registry: The value of capturing all acute trauma admissions

Introduction: Twenty years ago the Dutch trauma care system was reformed by the designating 11 level one Regional trauma centres (RTCs) to organise trauma care. The RTCs set up the Dutch National Trauma Registry (DNTR) to evaluate epidemiology, patient distribution, resource use and quality of care. In this study we describe the DNTR, the incidence and main characteristics of Dutch acutely admitted trauma patients, and evaluate the value of including all acute trauma admissions compared to more stringent criteria applied by the national trauma registries of the United Kingdom and Germany. Methods: The DNTR includes all injured patients treated at the ED within 48 hours after trauma and consecutively followed by direct admission, transfers to another hospital or death at the ED. DNTR data on admission years 2007-2018 were extracted to describe the maturation of the registry. Data from 2018 was used to describe the incidence rate and patient characteristics. Inclusion criteria of the Trauma Audit and Research (TARN) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU) were applied on 2018 DNTR data. Results: Since its start in 2007 a total of 865,460 trauma cases have been registered in the DNTR. Hospital participation increased from 64% to 98%. In 2018, a total of 77,529 patients were included, the median age was 64 years, 50% males. Severely injured patients with an ISS≥16, accounted for 6% of all admissions, of which 70% was treated at designated RTCs. Patients with an ISS≤ 15were treated at non-RTCs in 80% of cases. Application of DGU or TARN inclusion criteria, resulted in inclusion of respectively 5% and 32% of the DNTR patients. Particularly children, elderly and patients admitted at non-RTCs are left out. Moreover, 50% of ISS≥16 and 68% of the fatal cases did not meet DGU inclusion criteria Conclusion: The DNTR has evolved into a comprehensive well-structured nationwide population-based trauma register. With 80,000 inclusions annually, the DNTR has become one of the largest trauma databases in Europe The registries strength lies in the broad inclusion criteria which enables studies on the burden of injury and the quality and efficiency of the entire trauma care system, encompassing all trauma‐receiving hospitals

Epidemiology, Prehospital Characteristics and Outcomes of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in The Netherlands: The BRAIN-PROTECT Study

Objective: A thorough understanding of the epidemiology, patient characteristics, trauma mechanisms, and current outcomes among patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important as it may inform potential strategies to improve prehospital emergency care. The aim of this study is to describe the prehospital epidemiology, characteristics and outcome of (suspected) severe TBI in the Netherlands. Methods: The BRAIN-PROTECT study is a prospective observational study on prehospital management of patients with severe TBI in the Netherlands. The study population comprised all consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of TBI and a prehospital GCS score ≤ 8, who were managed by one of the 4 Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS). Patients were followed-up in 9 trauma centers until 1 year after injury. Planned sub-analyses were performed for patients with “confirmed” and “isolated” TBI. Results: Data from 2,589 patients, of whom 2,117 (81.8%) were transferred to a participating trauma center, were analyzed. The incidence rate of prehospitally suspected and confirmed severe TBI were 3.2 (95% CI: 3.1;3.4) and 2.7 (95% CI: 2.5;2.8) per 100,000 inhabitants per year, respectively. Median patient age was 46 years, 58.4% were involved in traffic crashes, of which 37.4% were bicycle related. 47.6% presented with an initial GCS of 3. The median time from HEMS dispatch to hospital arrival was 54 minutes. The overall 30-day mortality was 39.0% (95% CI: 36.8;41.2). Conclusion: This article summarizes the prehospital epidemiology, characteristics and outcome of severe TBI in the Netherlands, and highlights areas in which primary prevention and prehospital care can be improved