Impact of Trauma Verification Level on Management and Outcomes of Combined Traumatic Brain and Solid Organ Injuries: An NTDB Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Level-I and level-II trauma centers are required to offer equivalent resources since "The Orange Book." This study evaluates differences between level-I and level-II management of solid organ injury (SOI) with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Banks from 2013 to 2021 of adult (≥18 years), blunt trauma patients with both TBI and SOI treated at level-I or level-II trauma centers. RESULTS: 48,479 TBI and SOI patients were identified, 32,611 (67.3%) at level-I centers. Unadjusted incidence of laparotomy was higher at level I (14.5% vs 11.7%, P < 0.001), and angiography rates were similar (3.3% vs 3.4%, P 0.717). Sub-group analysis of stable patients (SBP ≥100) showed an increase in nonoperative management at level II (87.3% vs 88.7%, P < 0.001) and decrease in laparotomy (9.9% vs 8.3%, P < 0.001). On logistic regression (LR), severe TBI, high-grade SOI, and level I trauma status were predictors of laparotomy. Logistic regression showed mild/moderate TBI with high-grade SOI and level II were associated with use of angiography. Unadjusted mortality rates were slightly different (14.8% vs 13.4%, P < 0.001), but there was no association with trauma level on LR. DISCUSSION: Nonoperative management was seen more at level-II centers with laparotomy at level I. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in mortality in trauma levels. Matched patients for level I and II showed no statistical difference in management. Patients were treated similarly at both levels with similar outcomes and mortality.

Pediatric Trauma During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A 3-year Retrospective Analysis.

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the volume and types of trauma patients encountered. We performed a retrospective analysis of pediatric trauma patients <17 years old presenting within a large US health care system from 2019 to 2021. Demographics, trauma volume, injury severity, mechanism of injury, and outcomes were compared. A total of 16 966 patients, from 88 hospitals over 18 states, were included in our analysis. Pediatric traumas decreased from 2019 to 2020 and 2021. The injury severity scores (ISSs) increased from 2019 to 2020 and 2019 to 2021. Compared with 2019, more gun-related traumas occurred in both 2020 and 2021, whereas motor vehicle collisions decreased. There were additional changes in bicycle, assault, auto versus pedestrian (AVP), playground, and sports injuries. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the volume, injury severity, and mechanism of injury of the pediatric trauma population.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Trauma Encounters.

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic has affected the health care system significantly. We compare 2019 to 2020 to evaluate how trauma encounters has changed during the pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective analysis using a large US health care system to compare trauma demographics, volumes, mechanisms of injury, and outcomes. Statistical analysis was used to evaluate for significant differences comparing 2019 to 2020. RESULTS: Data was collected from 88 hospitals across 18 states. 169 892 patients were included in the study. There were 6.3% fewer trauma patient encounters in 2020 compared to 2019. Mechanism of injury was significantly different between 2019 and 2020 with less blunt injuries (89.64% vs. 88.39%, P < .001), more burn injuries (1.84% vs. 2.00%, P = .021), and more penetrating injuries (8.58% vs. 9.75%, P < .001). Compared to 2019, patients in 2020 had higher mortality (2.62% vs. 2.88%, P < .001), and longer hospital LOS (3.92 ± 6.90 vs. 4.06 ± 6.56, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected trauma patient demographics, LOS, mechanism of injury, and mortality.

A Contemporary Analysis of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on Mortality in Severe Injury.

BACKGROUND: Literature demonstrates increased mortality for the severely injured at a Level II vs. Level I center. Our objective is to reevaluate the impact of trauma center verification level on mortality for patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 utilizing more contemporary data. We hypothesize that there would be no mortality discrepancy. STUDY DESIGN: Utilizing the ACS Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File admission year 2017, we identified severely injured (ISS >15) adult (age >15 years) patients treated at an ACS-verified Level I or Level II center. We excluded patients who underwent interfacility transfer. Logistic regression was performed to determine adjusted associations with mortality. RESULTS: There were 63 518 patients included, where 43 680 (68.8%) were treated at a Level I center and 19 838 (31.2%) at a Level II. Male gender (70.1%) and blunt injuries (92.0%) predominated. Level I admissions had a higher mean ISS [23.8 (±8.5) vs. 22.9 (±7.8), <.001], while Level II patients were older [mean age (y) 52.3 (±21.6) vs. 48.6 (±21.0), <.001] with multiple comorbidities (37.7% vs. 34.9%, <.001). Adjusted mortality between Level I and II centers was similar (12.0% vs. 11.8%, .570). CONCLUSIONS: Despite previous findings, mortality outcomes are similar for severely injured patients treated at a Level I vs. Level II center. We theorize that this relates to mandated Level II resourcing as defined by an updated American College of Surgeons verification process.

Effect of Resident Involvement on Trauma Patient Outcomes: A Single-Institution Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the mortality difference and other outcome measures amongst trauma patients with residents involved in the initial management versus those that were managed by attending physicians only without resident involvement. DESIGN: Retrospective review. Chi-square, Fisher's tests were used to analyze the outcomes, diagnostics, and interventions using the presence of residents in the initial care of patients as an independent variable. Linear and logistic regression were used to estimate adjusted outcomes. SETTING: Riverside Community Hospital, Riverside California (State-designated level I trauma center) PARTICIPANTS: Data on all trauma patients ≥18 years old that were admitted between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020 was collected retrospectively (total 2644 trauma patients). Trauma patients that were transferred from outside facilities were excluded from the study. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mortality associated with resident involvement in both unadjusted and adjusted analysis. Patients treated by residents, however, had more comorbidities (higher CCI) and were more severely injured (higher ISS). On adjusted analysis, higher ISS was independently associated with resident presence. There was also a statistically significant increase in the use of diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions in the resident-present group. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of residents in the initial management of our trauma patient population was associated with no difference in overall mortality or morbidity, despite higher injury severity in the resident treated patient group.

A Re-Evaluation of the Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on the Early Risk of Death in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients.

Background Studies show increased early and overall mortality at level II compared to level I trauma centers in hemodynamically unstable patients. We hypothesize there is no mortality difference between level I and level II centers applying more contemporary data. Study design Utilizing the 2017 Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File (TQP-PUF), we identified adult patients (age >14 years) who presented to an American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified level I or II center with hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mmHg). Logistic regression was performed to identify adjusted associations with mortality. Results A total of 7,264 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom most were males (4,924 [67.8%]) with blunt trauma (5,924 [81.6%]) being predominated. Mean admission SBP was 73.2 (±13.0) mmHg. There were 1,097 (15.1%) deaths. Level I admissions (4,931 (67.9%]) were more likely male (3,389 [68.7%] vs. 1,535 [65.8]; p=0.012), non-white (3,119 [63.3%] vs. 1,664 [71.3%]; p<0.001), a victim of penetrating trauma (933 [18.9%] vs. 385 [16.5%]; p=0.015), and more severely injured (mean Injury Severity Score: 19.3 [±15] vs. 16.7 [±13.7]; p<0.001). Level II admissions (2,333 [32.1%]) were older (46.8 [±18.5] vs. 50.3 [±20.1] years; p<0.001) with more co-morbidities (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 1.43 [±2] vs. 1.77 [±2.2]; p<0.001). Adjusted mortality between level I and II admissions was similar (766 [15.5%] vs. 331 [14.2%]; p=0.918). Early hourly mortality also did not differ. Conclusion There is no overall or hourly mortality discrepancy between ACS-verified level I and II centers for patients presenting with hypotension. This potentially relates to the use of more contemporary data gathered after implementation of updated verification requirements.

Blunt Trauma Resulting in Testicular Evisceration: A Case Report.

Scrotal and testicular injuries are uncommon injuries, accounting for only a fraction of all trauma. Blunt scrotal trauma is accompanied by testicular rupture in up to 50% of cases. We present a rare case of scrotal rupture with evisceration of a viable, intact testicle after a motor vehicle accident. The patient's presentation, associated injuries, operation, and post-operative course are described. In brief, this is a case of a 69-year-old male who sustained multiple rib, pelvic, and right femur fractures in addition to scrotal injury after a motor vehicle accident. He was taken quickly to the operating room for the scrotal rupture, and his testicle was successfully replaced and scrotal laceration repaired. He did well post-operatively. This case represents one of the few accounts of this particular injury in the literature.

The effect of trauma center verification level on traumatic brain injury outcome after implementation of the Orange Book.

BACKGROUND: Previous literature demonstrates mortality discrepancies at Level II vs. Level I centers in patients with isolated Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Our hypothesis is that the implementation of the 2014 version of the resources manual ("the Orange Book") is associated with an elimination of this outcome disparity. METHODS: Utilizing the Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File for 2017, we compared TBI outcomes at ACS Level I vs. Level II centers. RESULTS: 39,764 records met inclusion criteria where 25,382 (63.8%) were admitted to a Level I center. Level I patients were younger (56.4 vs.59.1 years, p < 0.001) and less likely to have been injured in a single level fall (39.5%vs.45.5%, p < 0.001). The incidence of severe TBI (11.3%vs.10.3%, p < 0.001) was more common. Adjusted mortality at a Level II vs. Level I center were similar [7.8% vs. 8.4%, 0.669]. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of 2014 version of the ACS resources manual is associated with improved TBI associated mortality in ACS Level II centers relative to their Level I counterparts.

The Effect of Trauma Center Verification Level on Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Undergoing Interfacility Transfer.

BACKGROUND: Previous literature demonstrates increased mortality for traumatic brain injury (TBI) with transfer to a Level II versus Level I trauma center. Our objective was to determine the effect of the most recent American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) "Resources for the Optimal Care of the Injured Patient" resources manual ("The Orange Book") on outcomes after severe TBI after interfacility transfer to Level I versus Level II center. METHODS: Utilizing the Trauma Quality Program Participant Use File of the American College of Surgeons admission year 2017, we identified patients with isolated TBI undergoing interfacility transfer to either Level I or Level II trauma center. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent associations with mortality. RESULTS: There were 10,268 (71.6%) transferred to a Level I center and 4,025 (28.4%) were transferred to a Level II center. They were mostly male (61.4%) with a mean ± SD age of 61 ± 20.8 years. Mean Injury Severity Score was 16.3 ± 6.3 and most were injured in a single-level fall (51.5%). Patients transferred to a Level I center were less likely to be White (82.3% vs. 84.7%, 0.002) and more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma (2.7% vs. 1.6%, <0.001). The incidence of severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] = 3-8) was similar (9.3% vs. 8.3%, 0.068). On logistic regression, severity of TBI predicted death; however, there was no difference in adjusted mortality outcome with admission to a Level II versus a Level I center (0.998 [0.836-1.192], 0.985). CONCLUSIONS: There is no mortality discrepancy in patients with isolated TBI transferred to a Level II versus Level I center despite previous contrary evidence and thus no reason to bypass a Level II in favor of a Level I. This relative improvement potentially relates to the new requirements as defined in the latest version of the ACS-COT's resources manual.