Purpose: We investigated the clinical features, current negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) management strategies, and outcomes of pelvic-perineal soft tissue infection after open pelvic fractures. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of patients admitted to our trauma center with pelvic-perineal soft tissue after open pelvic fractures over a 7-year period. We investigated the injury severity score (ISS), medical costs, number of NPWTs, time required to reach definite wound coverage, complications, fracture classifications, transfusion requirements, interventions, length of stay (LOS) in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and prognosis. Results: Twenty patients with open pelvic fractures were treated with NPWT, and one patient who underwent NPWT died of pelvic sepsis during ICU treatment. The median LOS in hospital and medical costs were 98 [56–164] days and 106400 [65600–171100] USD, respectively. Patients treated with instillation NPWT (iNPWT, n=10) had a shorter NPWT duration (24 [13–39] vs. 46 [42–91] days, p=0.023), time to definite wound coverage (30 [21–43] vs. 49 [42–93] days, p=0.026), and hospital LOS (56 [43–72] vs. 158 [101–192] days, p=0.001), as well as lower medical costs (67800 [42500–102500] vs. 144200 [110400–236000] USD, p=0.009) compared to those treated with conventional NPWT. Conclusion NPWT is a feasible method for treating pelvic soft tissue infections in patients with open pelvic fractures. iNPWT can reduce the duration of NPWT, hospital LOS, and medical costs.

Purpose: We investigated the clinical features, current negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) management strategies, and outcomes of pelvic-perineal soft tissue infection after open pelvic fractures. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of patients admitted to our trauma center with pelvic-perineal soft tissue after open pelvic fractures over a 7-year period. We investigated the injury severity score (ISS), medical costs, number of NPWTs, time required to reach definite wound coverage, complications, fracture classifications, transfusion requirements, interventions, length of stay (LOS) in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and prognosis. Results: Twenty patients with open pelvic fractures were treated with NPWT, and one patient who underwent NPWT died of pelvic sepsis during ICU treatment. The median LOS in hospital and medical costs were 98 [56–164] days and 106400 [65600–171100] USD, respectively. Patients treated with instillation NPWT (iNPWT, n=10) had a shorter NPWT duration (24 [13–39] vs. 46 [42–91] days, p=0.023), time to definite wound coverage (30 [21–43] vs. 49 [42–93] days, p=0.026), and hospital LOS (56 [43–72] vs. 158 [101–192] days, p=0.001), as well as lower medical costs (67800 [42500–102500] vs. 144200 [110400–236000] USD, p=0.009) compared to those treated with conventional NPWT. Conclusion NPWT is a feasible method for treating pelvic soft tissue infections in patients with open pelvic fractures. iNPWT can reduce the duration of NPWT, hospital LOS, and medical costs.

Purpose: We investigated the clinical features, current negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) management strategies, and outcomes of pelvic-perineal soft tissue infection after open pelvic fractures. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of patients admitted to our trauma center with pelvic-perineal soft tissue after open pelvic fractures over a 7-year period. We investigated the injury severity score (ISS), medical costs, number of NPWTs, time required to reach definite wound coverage, complications, fracture classifications, transfusion requirements, interventions, length of stay (LOS) in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and prognosis. Results: Twenty patients with open pelvic fractures were treated with NPWT, and one patient who underwent NPWT died of pelvic sepsis during ICU treatment. The median LOS in hospital and medical costs were 98 [56–164] days and 106400 [65600–171100] USD, respectively. Patients treated with instillation NPWT (iNPWT, n=10) had a shorter NPWT duration (24 [13–39] vs. 46 [42–91] days, p=0.023), time to definite wound coverage (30 [21–43] vs. 49 [42–93] days, p=0.026), and hospital LOS (56 [43–72] vs. 158 [101–192] days, p=0.001), as well as lower medical costs (67800 [42500–102500] vs. 144200 [110400–236000] USD, p=0.009) compared to those treated with conventional NPWT. Conclusion NPWT is a feasible method for treating pelvic soft tissue infections in patients with open pelvic fractures. iNPWT can reduce the duration of NPWT, hospital LOS, and medical costs.

Purpose: We investigated the clinical features, current negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) management strategies, and outcomes of pelvic-perineal soft tissue infection after open pelvic fractures. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of patients admitted to our trauma center with pelvic-perineal soft tissue after open pelvic fractures over a 7-year period. We investigated the injury severity score (ISS), medical costs, number of NPWTs, time required to reach definite wound coverage, complications, fracture classifications, transfusion requirements, interventions, length of stay (LOS) in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and prognosis. Results: Twenty patients with open pelvic fractures were treated with NPWT, and one patient who underwent NPWT died of pelvic sepsis during ICU treatment. The median LOS in hospital and medical costs were 98 [56–164] days and 106400 [65600–171100] USD, respectively. Patients treated with instillation NPWT (iNPWT, n=10) had a shorter NPWT duration (24 [13–39] vs. 46 [42–91] days, p=0.023), time to definite wound coverage (30 [21–43] vs. 49 [42–93] days, p=0.026), and hospital LOS (56 [43–72] vs. 158 [101–192] days, p=0.001), as well as lower medical costs (67800 [42500–102500] vs. 144200 [110400–236000] USD, p=0.009) compared to those treated with conventional NPWT. Conclusion NPWT is a feasible method for treating pelvic soft tissue infections in patients with open pelvic fractures. iNPWT can reduce the duration of NPWT, hospital LOS, and medical costs.

Purpose: We investigated the clinical features, current negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) management strategies, and outcomes of pelvic-perineal soft tissue infection after open pelvic fractures. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of patients admitted to our trauma center with pelvic-perineal soft tissue after open pelvic fractures over a 7-year period. We investigated the injury severity score (ISS), medical costs, number of NPWTs, time required to reach definite wound coverage, complications, fracture classifications, transfusion requirements, interventions, length of stay (LOS) in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), and prognosis. Results: Twenty patients with open pelvic fractures were treated with NPWT, and one patient who underwent NPWT died of pelvic sepsis during ICU treatment. The median LOS in hospital and medical costs were 98 [56–164] days and 106400 [65600–171100] USD, respectively. Patients treated with instillation NPWT (iNPWT, n=10) had a shorter NPWT duration (24 [13–39] vs. 46 [42–91] days, p=0.023), time to definite wound coverage (30 [21–43] vs. 49 [42–93] days, p=0.026), and hospital LOS (56 [43–72] vs. 158 [101–192] days, p=0.001), as well as lower medical costs (67800 [42500–102500] vs. 144200 [110400–236000] USD, p=0.009) compared to those treated with conventional NPWT. Conclusion NPWT is a feasible method for treating pelvic soft tissue infections in patients with open pelvic fractures. iNPWT can reduce the duration of NPWT, hospital LOS, and medical costs.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

The Korean government initiated a plan to designate and establish Regional Trauma Centers to reduce the preventable trauma death rate to <20% so as to be on par with advanced countries by 2020. This initiative was undertaken because the reported preventable trauma death rate was close to 40% in South Korea from 1997 to 2009. This review aimed to provide an overview of these Regional Trauma Centers and discuss further development of the trauma care system to assess its performance. As of September 2021, 15 Regional Trauma Centers had been established through a metropolitan-based designation process. Each center has been equipped with Level-I facilities. These Regional Trauma Centers have had 2 positive effects; namely, an increase in the number of severely injured patients attending these centers and a decrease in the national preventable trauma death rate from 30.5% in 2015 to 19.9% in 2017. The establishment of Regional Trauma Centers can lead to improved performance, maximal efficiency, and reduction of preventable deaths in trauma patients.They can also play a key role in prehospital triage and transportation in the trauma care system.

Purpose: To investigate the status of protein supply by comparing the recommended amount with the delivered amount of protein in patients in the trauma and surgical intensive care units (ICU). Feedback on the protein supply status was presented to each hospital, and we evaluated whether the protein supply had increased to an appropriate level. Methods: In this retrospective observational multicenter study, nutritional information on patients in the trauma and surgical ICUs who had received nutritional support intervention was collected on the 1st Wednesday of each month at two-month intervals from August 2020 to June 2021, from nine domestic hospitals in Korea. Every two months, the nutritional status of each hospital was shared with all hospitals, and each nutritional support team received feedback on protein supply status. Results: There were 246 patients from nine hospitals included in this study, and data over the study period from six protein days, were analyzed. The mean ratios of delivered calories to calculated required calories were 74.0%, 80.8%, 85.4%, 77.9%, 71.3%, and 82.1% on Protein Days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The mean ratios of delivered protein to calculated required protein were 73.0%, 77.2%, 78.9%, 79.3%, 69.4%, and 89.6% on Protein Days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Conclusion Protein supply increased to an appropriate level, feedback on protein supply status may have increased the protein supply ratio and promoted appropriate protein supply and nutritional support for patients in the trauma and surgical ICUs.