Nationwide Analysis of Firearm Injury Versus Other Penetrating Trauma: It's Not All the Same Caliber.

INTRODUCTION: Ballistic injuries cause both a temporary and permanent cavitation event, making them far more destructive and complex than other penetrating trauma. We hypothesized that global injury scoring and physiologic parameters would fail to capture the lethality of gunshot wounds (GSW) compared to other penetrating mechanisms. METHODS: The 2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Programs participant use file was queried for the mortality rate for GSW and other penetrating mechanisms. A binomial logistic regression model ascertained the effects of sex, age, hypotension, tachycardia, mechanism, Glasgow Coma Scale, ISS, and volume of blood transfusion on the likelihood of mortality. Subgroup analyses examined isolated injuries by body regions. RESULTS: Among 95,458 cases (82% male), GSW comprised 46.4% of penetrating traumas. GSW was associated with longer hospital length of stay (4 [2-9] versus 3 [2-5] days), longer intensive care unit length of stay (3 [2-6] versus 2 [2-4] days), and more ventilator days (2 [1-4] versus 2 [1-3]) compared to stab wounds, all P < 0.001. The model determined that GSW was linked to increased odds of mortality compared to stab wounds (odds ratio 4.19, 95% confidence interval 3.55-4.93). GSW was an independent risk factor for acute kidney injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, and surgical site infection. CONCLUSIONS: Injury scoring systems based on anatomical or physiological derangements fail to capture the lethality of GSW compared to other mechanisms of penetrating injury. Adjustments in risk stratification and reporting are necessary to reflect the proportion of GSW seen at each trauma center. Improved classification may help providers develop quality processes of care. This information may also help shape public discourse on this highly lethal mechanism.

The impacts of anxiety and depression on outcomes in orthopaedic trauma surgery: a narrative review.

Introduction: The impact of anxiety and depression on outcomes in orthopaedic trauma surgery is a topic of growing research interest. Patients and methods: Orthopaedic trauma patients often experience high rates of psychiatric disorders, with anxiety and depression being the most prevalent. Mental health disorders have been shown to increase the risk of negative surgical outcomes and morbidity. This narrative review seeks to summarize the current literature surrounding the impacts of anxiety and depression on orthopaedic trauma surgery outcomes. Discussion: There is a bidirectional relationship between chronic pain and mental health disorders, involving overlapping brain regions and neurotransmitter pathways. Anxiety and depression have been identified as predictors of negative surgical outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients. Screening tools like the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener-7 (GAD-7), and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36) can assess mental health status and help tailor interventions. Psychological distress, chronic pain, and traumatic limb amputation are factors that contribute to adverse mental health outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients. Opioid use for pain management is common in orthopaedic surgery, but it can worsen symptoms of depression and lead to dependency. Non-opioid pain management strategies may improve postoperative outcomes by reducing the impact of opioid-exacerbated depression. Conclusion: Mental health interventions, both preoperative and postoperative, are crucial in optimizing surgical outcomes and improving patient quality of life. Multidisciplinary approaches that address both physical and mental health are recommended for orthopaedic trauma patients. Further research is needed to develop effective interventions for improving mental health outcomes in this patient population.