Pre-hospital and Hospital Trauma Care during the Covid-19 Lockdown - Experience in a Metropolitan European Level 1 Trauma Centre.

BACKGROUND: Trauma case load is said to have declined during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially during the national lockdowns. Due to the altered frequency and changes in daily life, pre-hospital care (altered personal protective measurements) as well as mechanisms of trauma and initial trauma treatment may have changed. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in pre-hospital as well as initial treatment of trauma victims and trauma mechanisms during a national lockdown compared to the year before. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pre-hospital as well as clinical data from all trauma patients admitted to our metropolitan level 1 trauma center resuscitation room during the hard lockdown in Switzerland (March 17 to April 26, 2020) and the same time period in 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: In total, we assessed 91 patients (51 lockdown cohort, 40 control cohort) with a mean age of 50.7 years. Significantly more trauma was sustained in the household environment during the lockdown (p = 0.015). Pre-hospital treatment remained similar between the two assessed groups. No difference was found in length of stay or mortality. In severely injured patients (ISS > 15), we found significantly fewer motor vehicle accidents (p = 0.018) and fewer horizontal decelerations (p = 0.006), but insignificantly more falls (p = 0.092) in the lockdown cohort. None of the patients in the lockdown cohort had a positive PCR test for Covid-19 on admission. CONCLUSION: Trauma systems seem not to have changed during hard lockdowns in terms of pre-hospital treatment. Fewer severely injured patients due to motor vehicle accidents and horizontal decelerations, but more household-related injuries were seen in the lockdown cohort than in the control cohort. A qualitative analysis of treatment during the hard lockdown is needed to gain further insights into the effect of the pandemic on trauma care.

Chest CT Findings and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Trauma Patients-Is There a Prediction towards Higher Complication Rates?

BACKGROUND: Polytrauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections may be associated with an increased complication rate. The main goal of this study was to analyze the clinical course of trauma patients with COVID infection and a positive CT finding. METHODS: This was a retrospective in-hospital study. Polytrauma patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in our analysis. The outcome parameters were pulmonary complication during admission, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, pneumonia, mortality, length of stay and readmission < 30 days. RESULTS: 48 patients were included in the study. Trauma patients in the age-adjusted matched-pair analysis with typical changes in SARS-CoV-2 infection in CT findings showed significantly more pulmonary complications in general and significantly more cases of pneumonia (complications: 56% vs. 11%, p = 0.046; pneumonia 44% vs. 0%, p = 0.023). In addition, the clinical course of polytrauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection showed a high rate of pulmonary complications in the inpatient course (53%). CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that the changes in the CT findings of trauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are a good indicator of further inpatient outcomes. Similarly, polytrauma patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and positive CT findings are shown to have increased risk for pulmonary complications.

The effect of Covid-19 on the willingness to use video consultations among orthopedic and trauma outpatients: a multi-center survey in 1400 outpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, making more use of remote medical solutions has been advertised. The purpose of this study was to assess the willingness of orthopedic trauma patients to conduct an online video consultation (OVC) during the coronavirus pandemic compared to before. METHODS: A survey amongst orthopedic and trauma outpatients from three European trauma centers was conducted via paper-based questionnaires, composed of participants' demographics and five open and closed questions between June and November 2019 and between April and July 2020 during Covid-19. The main outcome was the difference between the cohorts regarding the willingness to use an OVC, reasons for and against usage as well as advantages and disadvantages. Sub-analysis was performed for gender, participants' occupation and three age groups (≤ 30 years; 31-55 years; > 55 years). RESULTS: 1400 participants (780 preCovid-19 and 620 Covid-19) were included. There was no difference in willingness to conduct an OVC between the cohorts (57.6% versus 63.9%; p = 0.053). The highest disposition towards an OVC in both cohorts was seen in patients below 30 years of age, followed by 31-55 years and over 55 years. Women were significantly more likely in the Covid-19-group than in the preCovid-19-group to conduct an OVC (p = 0.032). Use of the OVC for "personal questions to the physician" was more often stated in the Covid-19-cohort (p = 0.007). "No danger of an infection" (p = 0.001) and "availability from anywhere" (p = 0.032) as advantages of an OVC were more often stated in the Covid-19-cohort. "No direct contact with the doctor" (p = 0.001) and "relationship to the doctor could change" (p = 0.024) as disadvantages of the OVC were less often stated in the Covid-19-cohort. CONCLUSION: The majority of the assessed outpatients would use an OVC. Fear of infections have increased, and direct physical contact is less important since the Covid-19 pandemic, but have not increased the disposition for an OVC significantly.

What is the acceptance of video consultations among orthopedic and trauma outpatients? A multi-center survey in 780 outpatients.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the present study was to assess orthopedic and orthopedic trauma patients' willingness to perform hypothetical remote video consultations, possible advantages as well as concerns. METHODS: Between June 2019 and November 2019, a survey amongst consecutive regular orthopedic and orthopedic trauma patients at the outpatient clinics from three European level I trauma centers was conducted via paper-based questionnaires, composed of participants` demographics as well as five open and closed questions. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was granted. RESULTS: In total, 780 participants (female 302, 38.7%, male 478, 61.3%) with a mean age of 43.8 years (SD 17.1, range from 14 years to 94 years) were included. The majority of the participants (57,6%) were eager to use a remote consultation. Participants with an age of more than 55 years were significantly less likely to use a remote consultation than their younger counterparts (OR= 0.18, p=0.003. r2=0.141). Among the whole study population, 86.2% stated, that they had a device compatible with an online video consultation. The highest willingness to conduct a video consultation in respect of the participants` occupation was observed in "part-time"-jobs (70.6%), whereas the lowest disposition was seen in retired patients (37.1%) (p= 0.0001). The most stated reason why to conduct a video consultation was "communication of medical findings" (67.8%). The most stated advantage was the "reduction of physical consultations" (66.4%). "No physical examination" was the most frequently stated disadvantage (75.9%). CONCLUSION: The majority of orthopedic and orthopedic trauma outpatients would use a video consultation, especially because of commuting and time issues and ideally to communicate medical findings, such as x-ray reports or lab values. Elderly patients appear to be less eager in regard to video consultations. These results may change for even better acceptance in view of a current pandemic situation, as experienced since early 2020. We feel that this assumption may warrant further investigation.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic on trauma bay management and guideline adherence in a European level-one-trauma centre.

PURPOSE: SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) represents a pandemic that has led to adjustments of routine clinical practices. The initial management in the trauma bay follows detailed international valid algorithms. This study aims to work out potential adjustments of trauma bay algorithms during a global pandemic in order to reduce contamination and to increase safety for patients and medical personnel. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared patients admitted to the trauma bay of one academic level-one trauma centre in March and April 2019 with patients admitted in March and April 2020. Based on these datasets, possible adjustments of the current international guidelines of trauma bay management were discussed. RESULTS: Group Pan (2020, n = 30) included two-thirds the number of patients compared with Group Ref (2019, n = 44). The number of severely injured patients comparable amongst these groups: mean injury severity score (ISS) was significantly lower in Group Pan (10.5 ± 4.4 points) compared with Group Ref (15.3 ± 9.2 points, p = 0.035). Duration from admission to whole-body CT was significantly higher in Group Pan (23.8 ± 9.4 min) compared with Group Ref (17.3 ± 10.7 min, p = 0.046). Number of trauma bay admissions decreased, as did the injury severity for patients admitted in March and April 2020. In order to contain spreading of SARS Cov-2, the suggested recommendations of adjusting trauma bay protocols for severely injured patients include (1) minimizing trauma bay team members with direct contact to the patient; (2) reducing repeated examination as much as possible, with rationalized use of protective equipment; and (3) preventing potential secondary inflammatory insults. CONCLUSION: Appropriate adjustments of trauma bay protocols during pandemics should improve safety for both patients and medical personnel while guaranteeing the optimal treatment quality. The above-mentioned proposals have the potential to improve safety during trauma bay management in a time of a global pandemic.

Lessons learned from the mechanisms of posttraumatic inflammation extrapolated to the inflammatory response in COVID-19: a review.

Up to 20% of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients develop severe inflammatory complications with diffuse pulmonary inflammation, reflecting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A similar clinical profile occurs in severe trauma cases. This review compares pathophysiological and therapeutic principles of severely injured trauma patients and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The development of sequential organ failure in trauma parallels deterioration seen in severe COVID-19. Based on established pathophysiological models in the field of trauma, two complementary pathways of disease progression into severe COVID-19 have been identified. Furthermore, the transition from local contained disease into systemic and remote inflammation has been addressed. More specifically, the traumatology concept of sequential insults ('hits') resulting in immune dysregulation, is applied to COVID-19 disease progression modelling. Finally, similarities in post-insult humoral and cellular immune responses to severe trauma and severe COVID-19 are described. To minimize additional 'hits' to COVID-19 patients, we suggest postponing all elective surgery in endemic areas. Based on traumatology experience, we propose that immunoprotective protocols including lung protective ventilation, optimal thrombosis prophylaxis, secondary infection prevention and calculated antibiotic therapy are likely also beneficial in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Finally, rising SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality rates mandate exploration of out-of-the box treatment concepts, including experimental therapies designed for trauma care.