BACKGROUND: As the population ages, the elderly will constitute a prominent proportion of trauma patients. The elderly suffer more severe outcomes from injuries compared with the young. In this study, we examined the relationship between mortality and complications with age. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of 256 major trauma patients (Injury Severity Score > 15) admitted to an emergency center over a two-year period. Age-dependent mortality and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 256 patients, 209 (81.6%) were male and the mean age was 47.2 years. There was a trend between increasing age and increasing mortality, but this was not statistically significant. Increasing age was correlated with frequency of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Age was confirmed to be an independent predictor of mortality in major trauma. We documented that elderly trauma patients suffer from complications more frequently compared with their younger counterparts. Appropriate and specific triage and management guidelines for elderly trauma patients are needed.
Aged* ; Emergencies ; Humans ; Male ; Mortality* ; Retrospective Studies ; Triage

Purpose: This study evaluated the surgical volumes and types of specific surgical procedures in a single trauma center for 3 consecutive years. Methods: From January 2014 to December 2016 there were 9,530 injury cases in the trauma registry that were reviewed. Results: There were 1,502 patients (15.8%) with an injury severity score over 15, of which 426 (28.4%) underwent an emergency operation or had an interventional radiology procedure. There were 186 craniotomies, 87 laparotomies, and 74 interventional radiology procedures performed. Conclusion The number of emergency operations by each dedicated trauma surgeon was very low therefore implementation of an acute-care surgery model is appropriate to consider together with changes to the training program for trauma surgeons.

Purpose: This study evaluated the surgical volumes and types of specific surgical procedures in a single trauma center for 3 consecutive years. Methods: From January 2014 to December 2016 there were 9,530 injury cases in the trauma registry that were reviewed. Results: There were 1,502 patients (15.8%) with an injury severity score over 15, of which 426 (28.4%) underwent an emergency operation or had an interventional radiology procedure. There were 186 craniotomies, 87 laparotomies, and 74 interventional radiology procedures performed. Conclusion The number of emergency operations by each dedicated trauma surgeon was very low therefore implementation of an acute-care surgery model is appropriate to consider together with changes to the training program for trauma surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring system and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scoring system are widely used for critically ill patients. We evaluated whether APACHE II score and SOFA score predict the outcome for trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed trauma patients admitted to the ICU in a single trauma center between January 2014 and December 2015. The APACHE II score was figured out based on the data acquired from the first 24 hours of admission; the SOFA score was evaluated based on the first 3 days in the ICU. A total of 241 patients were available for analysis. Injury Severity score, APACHE II score, and SOFA score were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall survival rate was 83.4%. The non-survival group had a significantly high APACHE II score (24.1 ± 8.1 vs. 12.3 ± 7.2, P < 0.001) and SOFA score (7.7 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.9, P < 0.001) at admission. SOFA score had the highest areas under the curve (0.904). During the first 3 days, SOFA score remained high in the non-survival group. In the non-survival group, cardiovascular system, neurological system, renal system, and coagulation system scores were significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: In ICU trauma patients, both SOFA and APACHE II scores were good predictors of outcome, with the SOFA score being the most effective. In trauma ICU patients, the trauma scoring system should be complemented, recognizing that multi-organ failure is an important factor for mortality.
APACHE* ; Cardiovascular System ; Complement System Proteins ; Critical Care* ; Critical Illness ; Humans ; Injury Severity Score ; Intensive Care Units* ; Mortality ; Multiple Trauma ; Retrospective Studies ; Survival Rate ; Trauma Centers

BACKGROUND: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring system and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scoring system are widely used for critically ill patients. We evaluated whether APACHE II score and SOFA score predict the outcome for trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed trauma patients admitted to the ICU in a single trauma center between January 2014 and December 2015. The APACHE II score was figured out based on the data acquired from the first 24 hours of admission; the SOFA score was evaluated based on the first 3 days in the ICU. A total of 241 patients were available for analysis. Injury Severity score, APACHE II score, and SOFA score were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall survival rate was 83.4%. The non-survival group had a significantly high APACHE II score (24.1 ± 8.1 vs. 12.3 ± 7.2, P < 0.001) and SOFA score (7.7 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.9, P < 0.001) at admission. SOFA score had the highest areas under the curve (0.904). During the first 3 days, SOFA score remained high in the non-survival group. In the non-survival group, cardiovascular system, neurological system, renal system, and coagulation system scores were significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: In ICU trauma patients, both SOFA and APACHE II scores were good predictors of outcome, with the SOFA score being the most effective. In trauma ICU patients, the trauma scoring system should be complemented, recognizing that multi-organ failure is an important factor for mortality.
APACHE ; Cardiovascular System ; Complement System Proteins ; Critical Care ; Critical Illness ; Humans ; Injury Severity Score ; Intensive Care Units ; Mortality ; Multiple Trauma ; Retrospective Studies ; Survival Rate ; Trauma Centers

PURPOSE: The Essential Surgical Procedures in Trauma (ESPIT) course was developed as a model to teach necessary surgical procedures to trauma physicians. Its goals are to improve knowledge, self-confidence, and technical competence. METHODS: The ESPIT course consisted of five lectures and a porcine lab operative experience. The ESPIT course has been run seven times between February 2014 and April 2016. ESPIT participants completed a questionnaire to assess self-efficacy regarding essential surgical procedures in trauma before and immediately after taking the ESPIT course. Sixty-three participants who completed both pre- and post-course questionnaires on self-efficacy were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The overall post-ESPIT mean self-efficacy score was higher than the pre-ESPIT mean self-efficacy score (8.3±1.30 and 4.5±2.13, respectively) (p<0.001). Self-efficacy was significantly improved after the ESPIT course in general surgeons (p<0.001), thoracic and cardiovascular surgeons (p<0.001), emergency medicine doctors, and others (neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (p<0.001). The differences in self-efficacy score according to career stage (<1 year, 1–3 years, 3–5 years, and >5 years) were also statistically significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The data of the ESPIT participants indicated that they felt that the ESPIT course improved their self-efficacy with regard to essential surgical procedures in trauma. The ESPIT course may be an effective strategy for teaching surgical procedures, thus promoting better management of traumatic injuries.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in managing noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) among trauma patients in Korea. The evolution of REBOA and its impact on patient survival was investigated as well as predictors of mortality. Methods: This retrospective study included 234 post-REBOA patients from 5 leading regional trauma centers across Korea between 2016 and 2021. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were various clinical parameters regarding REBOA, overall treatment flow, and complications. For comparative analyses, patients were dichotomized into in-hospital non-survivors or survivors. Then, generalized additive and linear regression models were used to evaluate the trend of in-hospital mortality. Results: The overall in-hospital mortality was 65.4%. The survivors had a higher proportion of responders following REBOA (87.7% vs 62.7%, p < 0.001). Key variables influencing outcomes included total occlusion time, red blood cell transfusion volume within the first 24 hours, revised trauma score, and systolic blood pressure gap. These factors significantly correlated with mortality rates in multivariate logistic regression. Conclusion Over 6 years, survival rates for NCTH patients undergoing REBOA in Korea have shown improvement. Despite diverse REBOA protocols across institutions, the results underscore the need for continued research, standardized practices, and national quality control measures to further optimize patient outcome and establish more effective treatment protocols for NCTH.

Background: The preventable trauma death rate survey is a basic tool for the quality management of trauma treatment because it is a method that can intuitively evaluate the level of national trauma treatment. We conducted this study as a national biennial follow-up survey project and report the results of the review of the 2019 trauma death data in Korea. Methods: From January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, of a total of 8,482 trauma deaths throughout the country, 1,692 were sampled from 279 emergency medical institutions in Korea. All cases were evaluated for preventability of death and opportunities for improvement using a multidisciplinary panel review approach. Results: The preventable trauma death rate was estimated to be 15.7%. Of these, 3.1% were judged definitive preventable deaths, and 12.7% were potentially preventable deaths. The odds ratio for preventable traumatic death was 2.56 times higher in transferred patients compared to that of patients who visited the final hospital directly. The group that died 1 hour after the accident had a statistically significantly higher probability of preventable death than that of the group that died within 1 hour after the accident. Conclusion The preventable trauma death rate for trauma deaths in 2019 was 15.7%, which was 4.2%p lower than that in 2017. To improve the quality of trauma treatment, the transfer of severe trauma patients to trauma centers should be more focused.