Purpose The Berlin poly-trauma definition (BPD) has proven to be a valuable way of identifying patients with at least a 20% risk of mortality, by combining anatomical injury characteristics with... Show morePurpose The Berlin poly-trauma definition (BPD) has proven to be a valuable way of identifying patients with at least a 20% risk of mortality, by combining anatomical injury characteristics with the presence of physiological risk factors (PRFs). Severe isolated injuries (SII) are excluded from the BPD. This study describes the characteristics, resource use and outcomes of patients with SII according to their injured body region, and compares them with those included in the BPD. Methods Data were extracted from the Dutch National Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2019. SII patients were defined as those with an injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score >= 4 in one body region, with at most minor additional injuries (AIS <= 2). We performed an SII subgroup analysis per AIS region of injury. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for SII subgroup patient outcomes, and resource needs. Results A total of 10.344 SII patients were included; 47.8% were ICU admitted, and the overall mortality was 19.5%. The adjusted risk of death was highest for external (2.5, CI 1.9-3.2) and for head SII (2.0, CI 1.7-2.2). Patients with SII to the abdomen (2.3, CI 1.9-2.8) and thorax (1.8, CI 1.6-2.0) had a significantly higher risk of ICU admission. The highest adjusted risk of disability was recorded for spine injuries (10.3, CI 8.3-12.8). The presence of >= 1 PRFs was associated with higher mortality rates compared to their poly-trauma counterparts, displaying rates of at least 15% for thoracic, 17% for spine, 22% for head and 49% for external SII. Conclusion A severe isolated injury is a high-risk entity and should be recognized and treated as such. The addition of PRFs to the isolated anatomical injury criteria contributes to the identification of patients with SII at risk of worse outcomes. Show less
Objective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcome of major trauma patients in the Netherlands. Summary Background Data: Major trauma patients highly rely on immediate access... Show moreObjective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outcome of major trauma patients in the Netherlands. Summary Background Data: Major trauma patients highly rely on immediate access to specialized services, including ICUs, shortages caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may influence their outcome. Methods: A multi-center observational cohort study, based on the Dutch National Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcome of major trauma patients (injury severity score >= 16) treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first COVID-19 peak (March 23 through May 10) were compared with those treated from the same period in 2018 and 2019 (reference period). Results: During the peak period, 520 major trauma patients were admitted, versus 570 on average in the pre-COVID-19 years. Significantly fewer patients were admitted to ICU facilities during the peak than during the reference period (49.6% vs 55.8%; P=0.016). Patients with less severe traumatic brain injuries in particular were less often admitted to the ICU during the peak (40.5% vs 52.5%; P=0.005). Moreover, this subgroup showed an increased mortality compared to the reference period (13.5% vs 7.7%; P=0.044). These results were confirmed using multivariable logistic regression analyses. In addition, a significant increase in observed versus predicted mortality was recorded for patients who had a priori predicted mortality of 50% to 75% (P=0.012). Conclusions: The COVID-19 peak had an adverse effect on trauma care as major trauma patients were less often admitted to ICU and specifically those with minor through moderate brain injury had higher mortality rates. Show less
Sturms, L.M.; Driessen, M.L.S.; Klaveren, D. van; Duis, H.J. ten; Kommer, G.J.; Bloemers, F.W.; ... ; Jongh, M. de 2021
Background: The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma... Show moreBackground: The goal of trauma systems is to match patient care needs to the capabilities of the receiving centre. Severely injured patients have shown better outcomes if treated in a major trauma centre (MTC). We aimed to evaluate patient distribution in the Dutch trauma system. Furthermore, we sought to identify factors associated with the undertriage and transport of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15) to the MTC by emergency medical services (EMS).Methods: Data on all acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands (2015-2016) were extracted from the Dutch national trauma registry. An ambulance driving time model was applied to calculate MTC transport times and transport times of ISS >15 patients to the closest MTC and non-MTC. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ISS >15 patients' EMS undertriage to an MTC.Results: Of the annual average of 78,123 acute trauma admissions, 4.9% had an ISS >15. The nonseverely injured patients were predominantly treated at non-MTCs (79.2%), and 65.4% of patients with an ISS >15 received primary MTC care. This rate varied across the eleven Dutch trauma networks (36.8%-88.4%) and was correlated with the transport times to an MTC (Pearson correlation -0.753, p=0.007). The trauma networks also differed in the rates of secondary transfers of ISS >15 patients to MTC hospitals (7.8% 59.3%) and definitive MTC care (43.6% - 93.2%). Factors associated with EMS undertriage of ISS >15 patients to the MTC were female sex, older age, severe thoracic and abdominal injury, and longer additional EMS transport times.Conclusions: Approximately one-third of all severely injured patients in the Netherlands are not initially treated at an MTC. Special attention needs to be directed to identifying patient groups with a high risk of undertriage. Furthermore, resources to overcome longer transport times to an MTC, including the availability of ambulance and helicopter services, may improve direct MTC care and result in a decrease in the variation of the undertriage of severely injured patients to MTCs among the Dutch trauma networks. Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to improving primary triage guidelines and instituting uniform interfacility transfer agreements. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
BACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury... Show moreBACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of >= 3 in >= 2 body regions (2AIS >= 3) combined with the presence of >= 1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODSThe evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS >= 3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of >= 16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS >= 3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of >= 16. RESULTSThe DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of >= 16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS >= 3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS >= 3 and ISS >= 16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSIONThis study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS >= 16 and 2AIS >= 3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate. Show less
Background Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of... Show moreBackground Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. Methods All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] >= 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008-2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. Results The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63-74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. Conclusion Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital. Show less
Introduction: Twenty years ago the Dutch trauma care system was reformed by the designating 11 level one Regional trauma centres (RTCs) to organise trauma care. The RTCs set up the Dutch National... Show moreIntroduction: Twenty years ago the Dutch trauma care system was reformed by the designating 11 level one Regional trauma centres (RTCs) to organise trauma care. The RTCs set up the Dutch National Trauma Registry (DNTR) to evaluate epidemiology, patient distribution, resource use and quality of care. In this study we describe the DNTR, the incidence and main characteristics of Dutch acutely admitted trauma patients, and evaluate the value of including all acute trauma admissions compared to more stringent criteria applied by the national trauma registries of the United Kingdom and Germany.Methods: The DNTR includes all injured patients treated at the ED within 48 hours after trauma and consecutively followed by direct admission, transfers to another hospital or death at the ED. DNTR data on admission years 2007-2018 were extracted to describe the maturation of the registry. Data from 2018 was used to describe the incidence rate and patient characteristics. Inclusion criteria of the Trauma Audit and Research (TARN) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie (DGU) were applied on 2018 DNTR data.Results: Since its start in 2007 a total of 865,460 trauma cases have been registered in the DNTR. Hospital participation increased from 64% to 98%. In 2018, a total of 77,529 patients were included, the median age was 64 years, 50% males. Severely injured patients with an ISS=16, accounted for 6% of all admissions, of which 70% was treated at designated RTCs. Patients with an ISS= 15were treated at non-RTCs in 80% of cases.Application of DGU or TARN inclusion criteria, resulted in inclusion of respectively 5% and 32% of the DNTR patients. Particularly children, elderly and patients admitted at non-RTCs are left out. Moreover, 50% of ISS >= 16 and 68% of the fatal cases did not meet DGU inclusion criteriaConclusion: The DNTR has evolved into a comprehensive well-structured nationwide population-based trauma register. With 80,0 00 inclusions annually, the DNTR has become one of the largest trauma databases in Europe The registries strength lies in the broad inclusion criteria which enables studies on the burden of injury and the quality and efficiency of the entire trauma care system, encompassing all trauma-receiving hospitals. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Gerven, P. van; Moumni, M. el; Zuidema, W.P.; Rubinstein, S.M.; Krijnen, P.; Tulder, M.W. van; ... ; Warrior-Trial Study Grp 2019
Background: Routine radiography in the follow-up of distal radial fractures is common practice, although its usefulness is disputed. The aim of this study was to determine whether the number of... Show moreBackground: Routine radiography in the follow-up of distal radial fractures is common practice, although its usefulness is disputed. The aim of this study was to determine whether the number of radiographs in the follow-up period can be reduced without resulting in worse patient outcomes.Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a non-inferiority design, patients >= 18 years old with a distal radial fracture could participate. They were randomized between a regimen with routine radiographs at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up (usual care) and a regimen without routine radiographs at those time points (reduced imaging). Randomization was performed using an online registration and randomization program. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcomes included the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) score, health-related quality of life, pain, and complications. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year of follow-up. Data were analyzed using mixed models. Neither the patients nor the health-care providers were blinded.Results: Three hundred and eighty-six patients were randomized, and 326 of them were ultimately included in the analysis. The DASH scores were comparable between the usual-care group (n = 166) and the reduced-imaging group (n = 160) at all time points as well as overall. The adjusted regression coefficient for the DASH scores was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.8 to 4.8). There was also no difference between the groups with respect to the overall PRWHE score (adjusted regression coefficient, 1.4 [95% CI = -2.4 to 5.2]), quality of life as measured with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) (-0.02 [95% CI = -0.05 to 0.01]), pain at rest as measured with a visual analog scale (VAS) (0.1 [95% CI = -0.2 to 0.5]), or pain when moving (0.3 [95% CI = -0.1 to 0.8]). The complication rate was similar in the reduced imaging group (11.3%) and the usual-care group (11.4%). Fewer radiographs were made for the participants in the reduced-imaging group (median, 3 versus 4; p < 0.05).Conclusions: This study shows that omitting routine radiography after the initial 2 weeks of follow-up for patients with a distal radial fracture does not affect patient-reported outcomes or the risk of complications compared with usual care. Show less
Weil, N.L.; Termaat, M.F.; Rubinstein, S.M.; Moumni, M. el; Zuidema, W.P.; Derksen, R.J.; ... ; Tulder, M.W. van 2015
