Major trauma patients and their outcomes - A retrospective observational study of critical care trauma admissions to a trauma unit with special services.

INTRODUCTION: International data describes a changing pattern to trauma over the last decade, with an increasingly comorbid population presenting challenges to trauma management and resources. In Ireland, resource provision and management of trauma is being transformed to deliver a trauma network, in line with international best practice. Our hospital plays a crucial role within this network and is designated a Trauma Unit with Specialist Services (TUSS) to distinguish it from standard trauma units. METHODS: This study aims to describe the characteristics of patients and injuries and assess trends in mortality rates. It is a retrospective observational study of adult ICU trauma admissions from August 2010 to July 2021. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-days, 90-days, and 1 year. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, disposition, and complications. Patients were categorised by age, injury severity score (ISS), and mechanism of injury. RESULTS: In all, 709 patients were identified for final analysis. Annual admissions doubled since 2010/11, with a trough of 41 admissions, increasing to peak at 95 admissions in 2017/18. Blunt trauma accounted for 97.6% of cases. Falls <2 m (45.4%) and RTAs (29.2%) were the main mechanisms of injury. Polytrauma comprised 41.9% of admissions. Traumatic brain injury accounted for 30.2% of cases; 18.8% of these patients were transferred to a neurosurgical centre. The majority of patients, 58.1%, were severely injured (ISS ≥ 16). Patients ≥ 65 years of age accounted for 45.7% of admissions, with falls <2 m their primary mechanism of injury. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality reduced with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 8.0% (95% CI: -8.37%, 24.36%), 12.9% (95% CI: -4.19%, 29.94%) and 8.2% (95% CI: -9.64%, 26.09%) for 30-day, 90-day and 1-year respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality for 30-days and 90-days post presentation to hospital (P-values of 0.018, 0.033 and 0.152 for 30-day, 90-day and 1-year respectively). CONCLUSION: The burden of major trauma in our hospital is considerable and increasing over time. Substantial changes in demographics, injury mechanism and mortality were seen, with outcomes improving over time. This is consistent with international data where trauma systems have been adopted.

Eficacia analgésica del bloqueo del grupo de nervios pericapsulares (PENG) en comparación con el bloqueo de la fascia ilíaca (FIB) en pacientes mayores con fractura de fémur proximal en la unidad de urgencias. Ensayo controlado aleatorizado / Analgesic efficacy of Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block compared with Fascia Iliaca Block (FIB) in the elderly patient with fracture of the proximal femur in the emergency room. A randomised controlled trial

Introducción y objetivos: Son escasos los datos relativos a la eficacia del bloqueo PENG (grupo de nervios pericapsulares) para el dolor por traumatismo de cadera. Formulamos la hipótesis de que el bloqueo PENG era más efectivo que el bloqueo FIB (fascia ilíaca) ecoguiado (infrainguinal) para controlar el dolor en los pacientes de 65 o más, con fractura de fémur proximal traumática en la unidad de urgencias hospitalarias (UUH). Materiales y métodos Realizamos un ensayo controlado aleatorizado exploratorio y doble ciego, siendo diferentes el anestesiólogo que realizó el bloqueo y el que evaluó los resultados. Se asignó aleatoriamente a los pacientes al grupo PENG con 20ml de ropivacaína al 0,375% o al grupo FIB (infrainguinal) con 40ml de ropivacaína al 0,2%. Se realizaron las pruebas de hipótesis estándar (prueba t o prueba χ2) para analizar las características basales y los parámetros del resultado. El objetivo primario del estudio fue el éxito analgésico de PENG evaluado como «puntuación NRS de dolor incidental≤4» 30min tras la colocación del bloqueo en comparación con FIB, también a los 30min del bloqueo. Los objetivos secundarios fueron el dolor en reposo («puntuación NRS de dolor en reposo≤4» 30min tras la colocación de los bloqueos), la duración de los bloqueos (tiempo transcurrido antes de la primera solicitud de analgesia del paciente), incidencia de administración de medicación de rescate en caso de fracaso del bloqueo, complicaciones relativas a la colocación del bloqueo. Resultados Tras la obtención de la aprobación del comité ético y el consentimiento informado escrito, se incluyó a 60 pacientes. Considerando el resultado primario, se logró el objetivo en el grupo PENG en 16 de entre 30 pacientes (53,3%), y en 15 de entre 28 casos en el grupo FIB (53,6%). La comparación entre ambos grupos no demostró la superioridad del bloqueo PENG frente a FIB (valor p=0,98). Conclusiones El bloqueo PENG no es superior ... . (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Data on the efficacy of PENG (Pericapsular Nerve Group) block in hip trauma pain are scarce. We hypothesized that PENG block was more effective than infra-inguinal ultrasound-guided FIB (Fascia Iliaca block) for pain control in patients aged 65 years or older presenting in the emergency room (ER) with traumatic proximal femoral fracture. Materials and methods We conducted an exploratory, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. One anaesthesiologist performed the block and another assessed outcomes. Patients were randomly allocated to the PENG group (20ml ropivacaine 0.375%) or the infrainguinal FIB group (40ml ropivacaine 0.2%). Standard hypothesis tests (t test or χ2 test) were performed to analyse baseline characteristics and outcome parameters. The primary end-point of the study was analgesic success, defined as «NRS pain score≤4» 30min after blockade, with PENG vs to FIB. Secondary outcomes were pain at rest («pain at rest NRS score≤4» 30min after blockade), duration of analgesia (time to first request for analgesia), need for rescue medication in case of block failure, and complications during blockade. Results After obtaining ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 60 patients were included.The primary endpoint was achieved in 16 out of 30 patients (53.3%) in the PENG group and in 15 out of 28 patients (53.6%) in the FIB group. Comparison between groups did not show superiority of the PENG vs FIB (p=0.98). Conclusions PENG block does not provide better pain than FIB in proximal femoral fracture in elderly patients treated in the ER. (AU)

Analgesic efficacy of Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) block compared with Fascia Iliaca Block (FIB) in the elderly patient with fracture of the proximal femur in the emergency room. A randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Data on the efficacy of PENG (Pericapsular Nerve Group) block in hip trauma pain are scarce. We hypothesized that PENG block was more effective than infra-inguinal ultrasound-guided FIB (Fascia Iliaca block) for pain control in patients aged 65 years or older presenting in the emergency room (ER) with traumatic proximal femoral fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. One anaesthesiologist performed the block and another assessed outcomes. Patients were randomly allocated to the PENG group (20 ml ropivacaine 0.375%) or the infrainguinal FIB group (40 ml ropivacaine 0.2%). Standard hypothesis tests (t test or χ2 test) were performed to analyse baseline characteristics and outcome parameters. The primary end-point of the study was analgesic success, defined as "NRS pain score ≤ 4" 30 min after blockade, with PENG vs to FIB. Secondary outcomes were pain at rest ("pain at rest NRS score ≤ 4" 30 min after blockade), duration of analgesia (time to first request for analgesia), need for rescue medication in case of block failure, and complications during blockade. RESULTS: After obtaining ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 60 patients were included. The primary endpoint was achieved in 16 out of 30 patients (53.3%) in the PENG group and in 15 out of 28 patients (53.6%) in the FIB group. Comparison between groups did not show superiority of the PENG vs FIB (P-value .98). CONCLUSIONS: PENG block does not provide better pain than FIB in proximal femoral fracture in elderly patients treated in the ER.

Advanced diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for anaesthetists in thoracic trauma: an evidence-based review.

Anaesthetists play an important role in the evaluation and treatment of patients with signs of thoracic trauma. Anaesthesia involvement can provide valuable input using both advanced diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Commonly performed interventions may be complicated in this setting including airway management, damage control resuscitation, and acute pain management. Anaesthetists must consider additional factors including airway injuries, vascular injuries, and coagulopathy when treating this population. This evidence-based review discusses traumatic thoracic injuries with a focus on new interventions and modern anaesthesia techniques. This review further serves to support the early involvement of anaesthetists in the emergency department and other areas where they can provide value to the trauma care pathway.

Mass casualty, intentional vehicular trauma and anaesthesia.

The use of motor vehicles to initiate mass casualty incidents is increasing in frequency and such events are called intentional vehicular assaults. Perpetrators are inspired by a range of terrorist ideologies or have extremist views, criminal intent, or mental health issues. Assaults using a motor vehicle as the principal weapon of attack are easy to launch and require little to no forward planning. This makes them difficult for police and security agencies to predict, prevent, or interdict. With the increasing frequency of intentional vehicular assaults, anaesthesiologists in various settings may be involved in caring for victims and should be engaged in preparing for them. This narrative review examines the literature on vehicle assaults committed around the world and provides an overview of the unique injury patterns and considerations for the pre-hospital, perioperative, and critical care management of victims of these mass casualty events. The article discusses planning, education, and training in an attempt to reduce the mortality and morbidity of intentional vehicular assaults.