Prognosis of penetrating trauma in elderly patients: a comparison with younger patients.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that elderly patients have a worse prognosis than their younger counterparts after sustaining blunt trauma. This is due in part to a higher incidence of comorbid conditions as well as less physiologic reserve in an elderly population sustaining largely blunt trauma. We compared the outcome after penetrating trauma in elderly patients to matched "younger" patients to determine whether they had a similarly poor prognosis. METHODS: Elderly patients (> or = 65 years) were identified from our trauma registry. Sex, mechanism of injury, and Abbreviated Injury Score/Injury Severity Score were determined from the registry. Patients presenting with traumatic arrest were excluded. The registry was then searched for patients aged 15 to 40 years with the same sex, mechanism of injury, and Abbreviated Injury Score in each region. A chart review was then performed to determine additional details of their hospital stay. The two groups were then compared using Student's t test and Fisher's exact chi2 test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Eighty-five elderly patients (OLD group) were admitted with penetrating trauma between 1983 and 1998. They were compared with 85 matched young patients (YOUNG group). Each group included 66 male and 19 female patients. In each group, gunshot wounds occurred in 45.9%, stab wounds in 52.9%, and shotgun wounds in 1.2% of patients. The average Injury Severity Score in each group was 5.5 +/- 5.6 (range, 1-29) and the regional Abbreviated Injury Scores were likewise equal in both groups. The OLD patients had an average hospital stay of 6.9 +/- 9.1 days compared with 4.3 +/- 5.7 days in the YOUNG patients (p < 0.05). Twenty-seven OLD patients spent 7.3 +/- 9.2 days in the intensive care unit compared with 19 YOUNG patients who stayed 3.4 +/- 3.2 days (p < .05). A total of 91 comorbidities were identified in 58 OLD patients compared with 18 in 15 YOUNG patients (p < .0001). Eighty-six invasive procedures were performed in the OLD group compared with 96 in the YOUNG group (p = not significant). Nineteen OLD patients (22.3%) and 15 YOUNG patients (17.6%) suffered one or more complications, including death (p = not significant). A total of 91% of surviving OLD patients were discharged to home compared with 100% of surviving YOUNG patients (p < .01). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients who sustain penetrating trauma have more comorbidities than their younger counterparts. This may account for their longer hospital stay and lesser ability to be discharged home. These patients do not have an increased complication rate and should continue to be managed aggressively.

Experience with over 2500 diagnostic peritoneal lavages.

This study was undertaken to confirm the safety and efficacy of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) for trauma patients. A prospectively maintained database of all DPLs performed in the past 75 months was analyzed. A red blood cell count of 100,000/mm(3) was considered positive for injury in blunt trauma; 10,000/mm(3) was considered positive for peritoneal penetration in penetrating trauma. Information relative to type of injury, DPL result, laparotomy result and complications, was analysed to determine if DPL was more or less suited to any specific indication or type of patient. Over a 75 month period, 2501 DPLs were performed at our urban level I trauma center. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for the above thresholds were 95, 99 and 98%. The majority (2409, 96%) were performed using percutaneous or "closed" seldinger technique. Ninety-two (4%) were performed using open technique because of pelvic fractures, previous scars and pregnancy. Open DPL was less sensitive than closed DPL in patients who sustained blunt trauma (90 vs 95%) but slightly more sensitive in determining penetration (100 vs 96%). Overall, there were 21 complications (0.8%). There was no difference in complication rate between open and closed DPL. In conclusion, DPL remains a highly accurate, sensitive and specific test with an extremely low complication rate. It can be performed either open or closed with comparable results. We recommend its use in the evaluation of both blunt and penetrating trauma.