RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We compared the survival of trauma patients in urban versus rural settings after the implementation of a novel rural non-trauma center alternative care model called the Model Rural Trauma Project (MRTP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of all trauma patients brought to eight rural northern California hospitals and two southern California urban trauma centers over a one-year period (1995-1996). Trauma patients with an injury severity score (ISS) of >10 were included in the study. We used logistic regression to assess disparities in odds of survival while controlling for Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) parameters. RESULTS: A total of 1,122 trauma patients met criteria for this study, with 336 (30%) from the rural setting. The urban population was more seriously injured with a higher median ISS (17 urban and 14 rural) and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (GCS 14 urban and 15 rural). Patients in urban trauma centers were more likely to suffer penetrating trauma (25% urban versus 9% rural). After correcting for differences in patient population, the mortality associated with being treated in a rural hospital (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.39) was not significantly different than an urban trauma center. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that rural and urban trauma patients are inherently different. The rural system utilized in this study, with low volume and high blunt trauma rates, can effectively care for its population of trauma patients with an enhanced, committed trauma system, which allows for expeditious movement of patients toward definitive care.
RESUMO
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe the success and complication rate of intraosseous (IO) access for delivery of anesthesia with the use of an 18-gauge (G) intravenous (IV) needle. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Children's Welfare Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq. PATIENTS: 300 critically ill infants and toddlers, age 3 weeks to 16 months, requiring emergency surgery for intra-abdominal or pelvic conditions, in whom peripheral or central access was not obtainable. Patients presented for surgery between 2007 and 2010. INTERVENTIONS: In 26 patients, the IO catheter was established when peripheral access was not obtained at the outset of surgery; in 4 patients standard peripheral vascular access failed during the surgical procedure and IO access was obtained. An 18-G IV needle was placed into the proximal tibia and attached to an extension set with a 3-way stopcock to deliver anesthesia. MAIN RESULTS: For 26 critically ill children and 4 other children, IV access failed during delivery of anesthesia; vascular access was successfully obtained within minutes in all 30 infants (100%) using the intraosseous route. Ninety percent (27/30) of patients awoke immediately postoperatively in good condition; 10% (3/30) went to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) for further care due to their critical preoperative condition. Complications associated with use of the IO route were considered minor (3/30 pts [10%]) and included extravasation of fluid in two cases and cellulitis in one. CONCLUSION: The IO route provided for rapid delivery of anesthesia, induction, and maintenance in this series of critically ill infants undergoing emergency surgery when other vascular access routes failed. Few complications were noted. Intraosseous access was achieved through a simple technique using an 18-gauge IV needle.
