RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopy in the treatment and diagnosis of penetrating thoraco-abdominal injury has been established. However, there is no clear consensus on the role of laparoscopy in blunt injury due to numerous reasons, such as concerns of missed injury and technical problems in treating various abdominal organs. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of laparoscopy and evaluate its safety in managing blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. METHODS: The medical records and Korean Trauma Data Base (KTDB) of patients who underwent abdominal surgery from January 2018 to December 2022 at a single level I center were collected. Patients were classified into a laparoscopy group and a laparotomy group. The laparoscopy groups were matched 1:1 with the laparotomy group by using propensity score matching (PSM). Patient demographics, injured organ and its grade, operative procedure, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 128 patients were included. There was no significant imbalance in demographics between the two groups except sex. Injured organ and its grade showed no significant differences between the two groups except for the incidence of omentum. Small bowel and mesenteric repair were performed most often in both groups. Splenectomy, pancreatic surgery, duodenectomy, and liver resection were performed exclusively in the laparotomy group. Severe postoperative complication rate (3% vs. 20%: p = 0.004), length of stay in ICU (3.3 ± 3.2 days vs. 4.6 ± 3.7; p = 0.046), and operation time (93.9 ± 47.7 min vs. 112.8 ± 57.7; p = 0.046) were significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. The conversion rate was about 16%. There was no missed injury. CONCLUSIONS: In hemodynamically stable abdominal trauma patients who sustained penetrating or blunt injury, laparoscopy is feasible and safe as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in selected cohort of abdominal trauma.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Delayed diagnosed injuries (DDI) in severely injured patients are an essential problem faced by emergency staff. Aim of the current study was to analyse incidence and type of DDI in a large trauma cohort. Furthermore, factors predicting DDI were investigated to create a score to identify patients at risk for DDI. METHODS: Multiply injured patients admitted between 2011 and 2020 and documented in the TraumaRegister DGU® were analysed. Primary admitted patients with severe injuries and/or intensive care who survived at least 24 h were included. The prevalence, type and severity of DDI were described. Through multivariate logistic regression analysis, risk factors for DDI were identified. Results were used to create a 'Risk for Delayed Diagnoses' (RIDD) score. RESULTS: Of 99,754 multiply injured patients, 9,175 (9.2%) had 13,226 injuries first diagnosed on ICU. Most common DDI were head injuries (35.8%), extremity injuries (33.3%) and thoracic injuries (19.7%). Patients with DDI had a higher ISS, were more frequently unconscious, in shock, required more blood transfusions, and stayed longer on ICU and in hospital. Multivariate analysis identified seven factors indicating a higher risk for DDI (OR from 1.2 to 1.9). The sum of these factors gives the RIDD score, which expresses the individual risk for a DDI ranging from 3.6% (0 points) to 24.8% (6 + points). CONCLUSION: DDI are present in a sounding number of trauma patients. The reported results highlight the importance of a highly suspicious and thorough physical examination in the trauma room. The introduced RIDD score might help to identify patients at high risk for DDI. A tertiary survey should be implemented to minimise delayed diagnosed or even missed injuries.

RESUMEN

A thorough exploration of traumatic wound is critical to accurately assess the severity of the injury. When it comes to glass-related injuries, the diagnosis of a glass foreign body is often prioritized over identifying any underlying damage. The authors report a case of peroneus longus tendon rupture caused by plate-glass accident that was misdiagnosed in the emergency department (ED) as a superficial laceration.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Current decision tools to guide trauma computed tomography (CT) imaging were not validated for use in older patients. We hypothesized that specific clinical variables would be predictive of injury and could be used to guide imaging in this population to minimize risk of missed injury. METHODS: Blunt trauma patients aged 65 y and more admitted to a Level 1 trauma center intensive care unit from January 2018 to November 2020 were reviewed for histories, physical examination findings, and demographic information known at the time of presentation. Injuries were defined using the patient's final abbreviated injury score codes, obtained from the trauma registry. Abbreviated injury score codes were categorized by corresponding CT body region: Head, Face, Chest, C-Spine, Abdomen/Pelvis, or T/L-Spine. Variable groupings strongly predictive of injury were tested to identify models with high sensitivity and a negative predictive value. RESULTS: We included 608 patients. Median age was 77 y (interquartile range, 70-84.5) and 55% were male. Ground-level fall was the most common injury mechanism. The most commonly injured CT body regions were Head (52%) and Chest (42%). Variable groupings predictive of injury were identified in all body regions. We identified models with 97.8% sensitivity for Head and 98.8% for Face injuries. Sensitivities more than 90% were reached for all except C-Spine and Abdomen/Pelvis. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids to guide imaging for older trauma patients are needed to improve consistency and quality of care. We have identified groupings of clinical variables that are predictive of injury to guide CT imaging after geriatric blunt trauma. Further study is needed to refine and validate these models.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background Missed injuries are defined as injuries neither detected in the emergency department (ED) nor after admission to the hospital. The objective of this research was to identify missed injury rates, contributing factors, and clinical outcomes. Methods A total of 657 trauma patients' records were retrospectively reviewed after admission to King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) during the period from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients' demographic characteristics, presence of a missed injury, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were assessed. Results Among 657 patients who were admitted to our emergency department, only 11 (1.7%) patients were reported to have a missed injury during the hospital stay. None of those missed injuries contributed to the overall mortality. Higher GCS is a protective factor for missed injury with OR=0.12-0.81 and p-value=0.01. RTS and intensive care unit (ICU) stays were borderline although p-value=0.05 and OR=9 for RTS. Both longer ICU stays and high RTS were related to a higher risk of missed injury. Conclusion In our study, the prevalence of missed injuries was on the lower end of the spectrum in comparison to multiple published data. The most common missed injuries were fractures and joint dislocations of extremities. None of those missed injuries were life-threatening or contributed to overall mortality. Higher GCS was a protective factor against missed injuries while high RTS and longer ICU stays were related to a higher likelihood of developing missed injuries during the hospital course.

RESUMEN

Background: Although an intensive care unit (ICU) admission is a risk factor for missed injury, there has been some disagreement on whether missed injuries in trauma ICU patients have a longer length of stay (LOS). With this in mind, these patients' frequency of missed injuries and related factors were investigated. Materials and methods: This was a prospective cohort study on multiple trauma injury patients in a tertiary referral trauma center's trauma intensive care unit (TICU) from March 2020 to March 2021. A tertiary survey was conducted in the TICU by attending physicians to find the types I and II missed injuries (any injury discovered after primary and secondary surveys during the hospital stay). A logistic regression model was designed for predictors of missed injuries in ICU-admitted multiple trauma patients. Results: Out of 290 study participants, 1,430 injuries were found, and of those injuries, 74 cases (25.5%) had missed injuries. In other words, there were 103 missed injuries, resulting in a missed injury detection rate of 7.2%. The most frequently missed injuries (43.4%) were concluded as extremities fractures. The regression model showed that the patients with missed injuries are prone to longer TICU LOS [odds ratio (OR) = 1.15; p = 0.033], and cases who underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan are less likely to have missed injuries (OR = 0.04; p < 0.001). The abbreviated injury scale (AIS) range was 1-3 in missed injuries. Conclusion: Our research underlines the importance of finding missed injuries and the necessity of CT scan to decrease them. In teaching centers, life-threatening injuries decrease with increasing visits and examination times. Although these missed injuries do not increase mortality, they cause longer TICU LOS and costs. How to cite this article: Bahramian M, Shahbazi P, Hemmati N, Mohebzadeh P, Najafi A. Extremity Fractures as the Most Common Missed Injuries: A Prospective Cohort in Intensive Care Unit Admitted Multiple Trauma Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(3):201-204.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Trauma is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Early detection of life-threatening injuries leads to improved survival. Computed tomography (CT) scanning has become the modality of choice for early detection of injuries in the stable patient. Some studies have associated selective imaging (Selective-CT) with equivalent outcomes compared to whole body imaging (Pan-CT) with lower costs and radiation exposure. Within the geriatric population, however, the utility of Pan-CT remains controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if a difference exists between Selective-CT and Pan-CT imaging in the geriatric trauma patient. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Level 3 (G60) trauma activations presenting to our urban Level I trauma center between June 2016 and June 2019 was performed. Pan-CT was defined by ICD-10 codes indicating a head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and pelvis CT series. Patients with missing images and those who were transferred from other institutions were excluded. Logistic regression controlling for age, gender, injury type, severity, and Glasgow Coma Score was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1014 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 30.9% underwent Pan-CT (n = 314), 48.9% had Selective-CT (n = 497), and 20.2% received no CT imaging (n = 203). After logistic regression, no clinically significant variations in emergency department length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ventilator days, discharge disposition, missed injury rate, or mortality rate were observed between imaging strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Pan-CT provides no clinically significant advantage over Selective-CT in the geriatric trauma patient.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: A tertiary trauma survey (TTS) is a structured, comprehensive top-to-toe examination following major trauma [1]. Literature suggests that the ideal time frame for the initial TTS should be completed within 24-hours of a patient's admission and repeated at important moments [2-4]. Evidence suggests that formal TTS reduces the rate of missed injuries by up to 38% [2]. AIMS: To determine the rate of TTS being conducted in trauma patients in a tertiary hospital without an admitting trauma service. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult trauma patients admitted to Middlemore Hospital (MMH) over six months. To be included, patients were either deemed to have a significant mechanism of injury or triggered a trauma call when arriving in the Emergency Department. RESULTS: We identified 246 patients who met our criteria for requiring a TTS. 74 (30%) had a TTS completed. Of those completed, 22 (30%) were documented using a standardised form. 35 (47%) were done within the ideal timeframe (24 h); a further 21 (28%) were done within 48 h. House Officers (Junior Medical Officers) conducted the majority (80%), with the remainder being done by final-year medical students (12%), Registrars (Residents) (4%) and Consultants (Attendings) (4%). Of the 74 TTS that were completed, 21 (28%) detected a possible new injury, with 22% leading to further investigations being ordered. 14 (19%) were found to have a previously undetected, clinically significant injury on TTS (defined as 'injuries requiring further clinical intervention'). Most patients (90%) were admitted to either General Surgery or Orthopaedics. Sixty-two (54%) of patients admitted to General Surgery received a TTS; compared to just 11 (10%) admitted under Orthopaedics and 1 of 24 (4%) admitted to other specialities (including Hands, Plastics, Maxillo-Facial, Gynaecology and Medicine). CONCLUSION: 30% of patients requiring a TTS received one. 19% of TTS conducted detected clinically significant injuries.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Tertiary surveys can help identify missed injuries, but how and when to conduct them remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of a policy requiring tertiary survey completion within 24 h post-admission. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed with a pre-intervention time-period of 8/1/2019-1/31/2020, where tertiary surveys were performed prior to discharge (n = 762). During the post-intervention time-period of 8/1/2020-1/31/21 tertiary surveys were performed within 24 h of admission (n = 651). RESULTS: Missed injury (1.6% [n = 12] vs. 1.5% [n = 10]; p = 0.953) and mortality rates (3.1% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.579) were similar between the pre- and post-intervention groups. Tertiary survey completion rates were higher (86.8% vs. 80.2%; p = 0.001) and exams performed earlier (1[1-1] vs. 1 [1-2] day, p < 0.001) in the post-intervention group. For those with missed injuries, time to injury identification and number of injuries identified on tertiary survey was unchanged. CONCLUSION: Requiring tertiary surveys within 24 h of admission can help identify and correct missed injuries, but standardization of the tertiary survey process and documentation may be as important as the timing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Despite well-established clinical guidelines and use of radiologic imaging for diagnosis, challenges are faced when accurate decisions must be made within seconds. Patients with life-threatening injuries represent 10-15% of all hospitalized trauma patients. In fact, 20% of abdominal injuries will require surgical intervention. In abdominal trauma, it is important to distinguish the difference between surgical intervention, which includes damage control procedures and definitive treatment. The main objective of damage control surgery is to control the bleeding, reduce the contamination and delay additional surgical stress at a time of physiological vulnerability of the patient, along with abdominal containment, visceral protection and avoiding aponeurotic retraction in situations where primary abdominal closure is not possible. However, this technique has high morbidity and comes with a myriad of complications, including development of catastrophic abdomen and formation of enterocutaneous fistulas.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Existing literature on trauma tertiary survey (TTS) focusses on multitrauma patients. This study examines the yield of the TTS in trauma patients with minor (AIS 1) or moderate (AIS 2) injury for which immediate hospitalization is not strictly indicated. METHOD: A single center retrospective cohort study was performed in a level II trauma center. All hospitalized trauma patients with an abbreviate injury score (AIS) of one or two at the primary and secondary survey were included. The primary outcome was defined as any missed injury found during TTS (Type 1). Secondary outcomes were defined as any missed injury found after TTS but during admission (Type 2); overall missed injury rate; mortality and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Out of 388 included patients, 12 patients (3.1%) had a type 1 missed injury. ISS and alcohol consumption were associated with an increased risk for type 1 missed injuries (resp. OR = 1.4, OR = 5.49). A type 2 missed injury was only found in one patient. This concerned the only case of trauma related mortality. Approximately one out of five patients were admitted for more than 2 days. These patients were significantly older (66 vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), had a higher ISS (4 vs. 3, p = 0.007) and ASA score, 3-4 vs. 1-2 (42.5% vs. 12.6%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TTS showed a low rate of missed injuries in trauma patients with minor or moderate injury. TTS helped to prevent serious damage in two out of 388 patients (0.5%). ISS and alcohol consumption were associated with finding missed injury during TTS.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Emergency trauma room treatment follows established algorithms such as ATLS®. Nevertheless, there are injuries that are not immediately recognized here. The aim of this study was to evaluate the residual risk for manifesting life-threatening injuries despite strict adherence to trauma room guidelines, which is different to missed injuries that describe recognizable injuries. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we included 2694 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency trauma room of one single level I trauma center between 2016 and 2019. In accordance with the trauma room algorithm, primary and secondary survey, trauma whole-body CT scan, eFAST, and tertiary survey were performed. Patients who needed emergency surgery during their hospital stay for additional injury found after guidelines-oriented emergency trauma room treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: In seven patients (0.26%; mean age 50.4 years, range 18-90; mean ISS 39.7, range 34-50), a life-threatening injury occurred in the further course: one epidural bleeding (13 h after tertiary survey) and six abdominal hollow organ injuries (range 5.5 h-4 days after tertiary survey). Two patients (0.07% overall) with abdominal injury died. The "number needed to fail" was 385 (95%-CI 0.0010-0.0053). CONCLUSION: Our study reveals a remaining risk for delayed diagnosis of potentially lethal injuries despite accurate emergency trauma room algorithms. In other words, there were missed injuries that could have been identified using this algorithm but were missed due to other reasons. Continuous clinical and instrument-based examinations should, therefore, not be neglected after completion of the tertiary survey. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II: Development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients (with universally applied reference "gold" standard).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

While ankle fractures most often result from a rotational injury, Lisfranc injuries are more commonly associated with an axial load on a plantarflexed foot. Due to differing mechanisms of injury, rotational ankle fractures with Lisfranc injuries are uncommon and rarely discussed in the literature. Here we present a case of a rotational ankle fracture-dislocation with a concomitant Lisfranc injury. The Lisfranc injury, which was ultimately treated nonoperatively, was discovered seven weeks after operative fixation of the ankle fracture. At the last follow-up nine months after the initial injury, the patient had mild midfoot soreness with activity but no evidence of deformity or arch collapse. Although no deformity was observed in our patient, missed Lisfranc injuries may result in significant functional deficits indicating the importance of recognizing the possibility of a dual injury.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Trauma care per Advanced Trauma Life Support addresses immediate threats to life. Occasionally, delays in injury diagnosis occur. Delayed diagnosis of injury (DDI) is a common quality indicator in trauma care, and pediatric DDI data are sparse. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe the DDI rate in a severely injured pediatric trauma population and identify any factors associated with DDI in the pediatric population. METHODS: A prospective cohort of trauma activations in 0- to 16-year-old patients admitted to a pediatric level I trauma center over 12 months with injuries prospectively recorded were followed during admission to identify DDI. RESULTS: A total of 170 trauma activations were enrolled. Twelve patients had type I DDI (7.1%), 15 patients had type II DDI (8.8%), and 5 patients had both type I and type II DDI (2.9%). DDI patients had twice as many injuries and higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS) as non-DDI patients. DDI patients were more likely to require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, longer hospital stay, and ventilator support. Controlling for age and ISS in multivariate analysis, the number of injuries found and requiring a ventilator were significantly associated with DDI. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study found a type I DDI rate of 7.1% and a type II DDI rate of 8.8% in the pediatric population. DDI patients had a greater number of injuries, higher ISS, higher rate of ICU admission, and were more likely to require mechanical ventilation. This study adds prospective data to the pediatric DDI literature, increases provider awareness of pediatric DDI, and lays the foundation for future study and quality improvement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The trauma tertiary survey (TTS) was first described in 1990 and is recognized as an essential practice in trauma care. The TTS remains effective in detecting secondary injuries in the modern era. METHODS: Trauma patients discharged between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, were identified in our trauma registry. Collected data include TTS completion rates, detection of injuries, type of provider, and timing. TTS documentation was qualitatively evaluated. RESULTS: Out of 407 patients, 264 patients (65%) received a TTS. Injury detection rate was 1.1.%. Average time to TTS was 41 hours. TTS were completed by resident physicians (46%) and advanced practice providers (APPs; 46%). TTS documentation was more complete for APPs than for resident physicians. CONCLUSION: TTS remains an integral component of modern trauma care. Ongoing education on the significance of TTS and the importance of thorough documentation is essential. Provision of real-time feedback to providers is also critical for improving current practices.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Pancreas is a less commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. This study aimed to analyze the management and outcomes of patients in whom the pancreatic injury was missed during the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively (2009-2019) analyzed the details and outcome of patients who underwent conservative management of blunt abdominal trauma, where the diagnosis of pancreatic injury was missed for at least 72 hours following trauma. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients with missed pancreatic injury were identified. All patients were hemodynamically stable following trauma and most (21) were initially assessed only by an ultrasound. A delayed diagnosis of pancreatic injury was made at a mean of 28 (4 to 60) days after trauma when patients developed abdominal pain (31), distension (18), fever (10) or vomiting (8). On repeat imaging, 18 (58.1%) patients had high grade pancreatic injuries including complete transection or pancreatic duct injury. Seven (22.5%) patients were managed conservatively, seventeen (54.8%) underwent percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections, seven (22.5%) underwent endoscopic or surgical drainage procedure for symptomatic pseudocyst. Eleven (35.4%) patients needed readmissions to manage recurrent pancreatitis, intra-abdominal abscess and pancreatic fistula. Three patients required pancreatic duct stenting for pancreatic fistula. There was no mortality. CONCLUSION: Pancreatic injury may be missed in patients who remain hemodynamically stable with minimal clinical symptoms after abdominal trauma, especially if screened only by an ultrasound. In our series, there was significant morbidity of missed pancreatic injury.

RESUMEN

Background: Some NCAA conferences now require a press box-based Medical Observer for all football games to identify injuries missed by on-field providers. The objective of this study was to determine whether a Medical Observer identified injuries missed by the on-field medical personnel. Methods: This was a comparative observational study of injury identification methods which was done at nine NCAA football games. The athletes on a single institution's varsity football team participated. Eight games and one bowl game were studied. Observers were sports medicine Fellows (Orthopaedic, Primary Care). Injury logs were kept by the Medical Observer to document game day injuries. The athletic training staff collected injury reports in the days following games. These were compared with game day injury logs to identify any injuries that were not reported to the medical staff during competition. Results: A total of 41 game injuries were identified (4.56 injuries/ game). 29 injuries (29/41; 71%) were identified by both the sideline medical providers and the Observer, 12 (12/41; 29%) were identified by only the sideline medical providers and no injuries were identified by only the Observer. A total of 95 game-related injuries were evaluated in the training room on the day after each game. 27 injuries (27/95; 28%) had been identified during the game (9 [33%] by the sideline medical team and 18 [67%] by both the sideline medical team and the Observer). Fourteen game injuries were not severe enough to require care the following day. There were 68 (68/95; 72%) delayed self-reported injuries treated by the training room staff the next day. Conclusions: A press box-based Medical Observer did not identify any injuries missed by the on-field medical staff. This study did, however, identify a large number of unreported game-day injuries that were treated the following day.Level of Evidence: II.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Increasing global demand for specialized radiological investigations has resulted in delayed or non-reporting of plain trauma radiographs by radiologists. This is particularly true in resource-limited environments, where referring clinicians rely largely on their own radiographic interpretation. A wide accuracy range has been documented for non-radiologist reporting of conventional trauma radiographs. The Lodox Statscan whole-body digital X-ray machine is a relatively new technology that poses unique interpretive challenges. The fracture detection rate of trauma clinicians utilizing this modality has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: An audit of the polytrauma fracture detection rate of clinicians evaluating Lodox Statscan bodygrams in two South African public-sector Trauma Units. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study of imaging data of Cape Town Level 1-equivalent public-sector Trauma Units during March-April 2015. Statscan bodygrams acquired for adult polytrauma triage were reviewed and correlated with follow-up imaging and patient records. Missed fractures were stratified by body part, mechanism of injury and ventilatory support. The fracture detection rate was determined with 95% confidence. The Generalised Fischer Exact Test assessed any association between the fracture site and failure of detection. Specialist orthopaedic review assessed the potential need for surgical management of missed fractures. RESULTS: 227 patients (male = 193, 85%; mean age: 33 years) were included; 195 fractures were demonstrated on the whole-body triage projections. Lower limb fractures predominated (n = 66, 34%). The fracture detection rate was 89% (95% CI = 86-93%), with the site of fracture associated with failure of detection (p = 0.01). Twelve of 21 undetected fractures (57%) involved the elbow or shoulder girdle. All elbow fractures (n = 3, 100%), more than half the shoulder girdle fractures (9/13,69%) and 12% (15/123) of extremity fractures were undetected. One missed fracture (1/21,4.7%) unequivocally required surgical management, while a further 7 (7/21, 33.3%) could potentially have benefitted from surgery, depending on follow-up imaging findings. CONCLUSION: This is the first analysis of the accuracy of bodygram polytrauma fracture detection by clinicians. Particular review of the shoulder girdle, elbow and extremities for subtle fractures, in addition to standardized limb positioning, are recommended for improved diagnostic accuracy in this setting. These findings can inform clinician training courses in this domain.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Missed injuries during the initial assessment are a major cause of morbidity after trauma. The tertiary survey is a head-to-toe exam designed to identify any injuries missed after initial resuscitation. We designed a novel mobile device application (Physician Assist Trauma Software [PATS]) to standardize performance and documentation of the tertiary survey. This study was undertaken to assess the feasibility of introducing PATS into routine clinical practice, as well as its capacity to reduce missed injuries. METHODS: Prior to implementation of PATS, the missed injury rates at a higher-volume and a medium-volume level I trauma center were assessed. The PATS program was implemented simultaneously at both centers. Missed injuries were tracked during the study period. Compliance and tertiary survey completion rates were evaluated as a marker of feasibility. RESULTS: At the higher-volume trauma center, the missed injury rated decreased from 1% to 0% with the introduction of the PATS program (p = 0.04). At the medium-volume trauma center, the missed injury rate decreased from 9% to 1% (p < 0.001). Compliance and documentation increased from 68% to 100%, and from no formal documentation to 60% compliance at the higher- and medium-volume centers respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a mobile tertiary survey application significantly reduced missed injuries at both a higher- and medium-volume trauma center. The use of this application resulted in a significant improvement in compliance with documentation of the tertiary survey.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The 'white-eyed' blowout fracture (WEBOF) is an injury that is often overlooked in head trauma patients, as it often has few overt clinical and radiographic features. Although benign in appearance, it can lead to significant patient morbidity. Here, we intend to increase the awareness of WEBOF and provide general principles for its diagnosis. WEBOF should be recognized early to ensure timely management and a successful outcome.