All posts by The Trauma Pro

Extremity

What Is: The Galeazzi Fracture?

Leave a comment

Orthopedic surgeons have so many names for fractures, it gets confusing! Today, let’s dig in to the “Galeazzi fracture.” This one was named for an Italian surgeon during the early 20th century) although it was actually first described by an Englishman named Cooper a hundred years earlier).

The Galeazzi fracture is an uncommon one, and consists of two components: a radius fracture at the junction of the distal and middle thirds, and a dislocation of the distal radio-ulnar joint. Here’s what it looks like:

Notice the obvious dislocation seen in the lateral view. Of course, a whole classification system has been developed to describe the various nuances of this fracture pattern, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.

What to do about it? This one needs prompt orthopedic consultation, and due to the dislocation component it requires operative management in adults. In children, initial closed reduction is the treatment of choice.

Monday, I’ll describe this fracture’s evil twin, The Monteggia fracture.

Solid organ

Phlebotomy And Pediatric Solid Organ Injury

Leave a comment

A pediatric trauma paper published a while back tried to focus on reducing the rate of phlebotomy in children who were being observed for solid organ injury. I was more excited about the overall protocol being used to manage liver and spleen injury, as it was a great advance over the original APSA guideline. But let’s look at the phlebotomy part as well.

This is an interestingly weird study, and you’ll see what I mean shortly. Two New York trauma hospitals that take care of pediatric patients pooled 4 years of registry records on children with isolated blunt liver and/or spleen injuries. Then they did a tabletop excercise, looking at “what if” they had applied the APSA guideline, and “what if” they had applied their new, proposed guideline.

Interestingly, this implies that they were using neither! I presume they are trying to justify (and push all their partners) to move to the new protocol from (probably) random, individual choice.

Here are the factoids:

  • 120 records were identified across the 2 hospitals that met criteria
  • Late presentation to the hospital, contrast extravasation, comorbidities, lack of imaging, operative intervention at an outside hospital excluded 59 patients, leaving 61 for analysis. Three of those patients became unstable and were also excluded.
  • None of the remaining patients required operation or angioembolization
  • Use of the “new” (proposed) protocol would reduce ICU admissions by 65%, reduce blood draws by 70%, and reduce hospital stay by 37%
  • Conclusion: use of the protocol would eliminate the need for serial phlebotomy (huh?)

Bottom line: Huh? All this to justify decreasing blood draws? I know, kids hate needles, but the data on decreased length of stay in the hospital and ICU is much more important! We’ve been using a protocol similar to their “new” one at Regions Hospital for almost 10 years, which I’ve shared below. We’ve been enjoying decreased resource utilization, blood draws, and very short lengths of stay for over a decade. And our analysis showed that we save more than $1000 for every patient entering the protocol, compared to the old-fashioned and inefficient way we used to manage them.

In general, kids (and adults) with low grade injuries (I-III) need 2 blood draws, and those with high grade need about 3. Check out our guidelines below to see how it works!

Related posts:

Reference: Reducing scheduled phlebotomy in stable pediatric patients with liver or spleen injury. J Ped Surg 49(5):759-762, 2014.

Head

Everything You Wanted To Know About: Cranial Bone Flaps

Leave a comment

Patients with severe TBI frequently undergo surgical procedures to remove clot or decompress the brain. Most of the time, they undergo a craniotomy, in which a bone flap is raised temporarily and then replaced at the end of the procedure.

But in decompressive surgery, the bone flap cannot be replaced because doing so may increase intracranial pressure. What to do with it?

There are four options:

  1. The piece of bone can buried in the subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal wall. The advantage is that it can’t get lost. Cosmetically, it looks odd, but so does having a bone flap missing from the side of your head. And this technique can’t be used as easily if the patient has had prior abdominal surgery.

2. Some centers have buried the flap in the subgaleal tissues of the scalp on the opposite side of the skull. The few papers on this technique demonstrated a low infection rate. The advantage is that only one surgical field is necessary at the time the flap is replaced. However, the cosmetic disadvantage before the flap is replaced is much more pronounced.

3. Most commonly, the flap is frozen and “banked” for later replacement. There are reports of some mineral loss from the flap after replacement, and occasional infection. And occasionally the entire piece is misplaced. Another disadvantage is that if the patient moves away or presents to another hospital for flap replacement, the logistics of transferring a frozen piece of bone are very challenging.

4. Some centers just throw the bone flap away. This necessitates replacing it with some other material like metal or plastic. This tends to be more complicated and expensive, since the replacement needs to be sculpted to fit the existing gap.

So which flap management technique is best? Unfortunately, we don’t know yet, and probably never will. Your neurosurgeons will have their favorite technique, and that will ultimately be the option of choice.

Reference: Bone flap management in neurosurgery. Rev Neuroscience 17(2):133-137, 2009.

Trauma Center, Trauma Systems

Secondary Overtriage: What Is It, And Why Is It Bad?

Leave a comment

Simply put, secondary overtriage (SO) is the unnecessary transfer of a patient to another hospital. How can you, as the referring trauma professional, know that it is unnecessary? Almost by definition, you can’t, unless you have some kind of precognition. If you knew it wasn’t necessary, you wouldn’t do it in the first place, right?

But using the retrospectoscope, it’s much easier. The classic definition describes a patient who is discharged from the hospital shortly after arrival there. What is “shortly?” Typically, it occurs within 48 hours in a patient with low injury severity (ISS < 16) and without operative intervention. Definitions may vary slightly.

And why is it bad?

Several states with rural trauma systems have scrutinized this issue. The first study is from West Virginia, where six years of state registry data were analyzed. Over 19,000 adults were discharged home from a non-Level I center within 48 hours after an injury. Of those, about 1,900 (10%) had been transferred to a “higher level of care” and discharged from that center (secondary overtriage, could be any higher-level trauma center).

The factoids:

  • Patients with ISS > 15 and requiring blood transfusion were more likely to be SO. (I would argue that this is appropriate triage in most cases!)
  • Neurosurgical, spine and facial injuries were also associated with SO. (This one is a little more interesting, see below).
  • SO was more likely for transfers during the night shift, when resources are often more scarce

The problem is that this study is descriptive only. It doesn’t really help us figure out which patients could/should be kept based on any of the variables they collected.

The next study is from Dartmouth in New Hampshire and examines transfers into that single Level I center from 72 other hospitals. Registry data were examined over 5 years, identifying transfer patients with ISS < 15 who were discharged within 48 hours without an operation.

Yet more factoids:

  • 62% of the nearly 8,000 patients received by this center were transfers
  • Overall SO rate was 26%
  • A quarter of adult patients and one half of pediatric patients were considered SO, and about 15% of them were actually discharged from the ED (!)
  • Head and neck, and soft tissue injuries were most common among SO patients

The real bottom line: Here are my thoughts on what you can do to try to decrease the number of your patients with SO and optimize the transfer process:

  • Work with your upstream trauma center to determine how much imaging you really need to perform
  • Develop a reliable method of getting those images to them
  • Ask them to help you develop practice guidelines and educate your hospital/ED staff to help manage common diagnoses that often result in SO from your center
  • If you are located in a rural area, inquire about RTTD courses you might attend

References:

  • Secondary overtriage in a statewide rural trauma system. J Surg Research 198:462-467, 2015.
  • Secondary overtriage: the burden of unnecessary interfacility transfers in a rural trauma system. JAMA Surg 48(8):763-768, 2013.
Trauma Center, Trauma Systems

Radiographic Image Sharing Systems

Leave a comment

There are generally three ways to share radiographic images with your upstream trauma center:

  • Hard copy. These days, that usually means a CD. Nearly all PACS systems (picture archiving and communications systems) can write CDs that can accompany your patient. Advantage: super cheap. Possible downsides: the CD may be corrupted and not openable, the software on the disk cannot be installed or will not run at the receiving hospital, and finally it can just be forgotten in the rush to get the patient out of the ED.
  • PACS system connections. These are software links that enable one hospital’s PACS software to communicate with another’s. They must be established in advance, and generally require some expertise from the hospitals’ IT departments. Images can be pushed from one system to another. Advantages: once set up, it is very inexpensive to maintain, and images can be viewed prior to patient arrival at the receiving hospital. Possible downside: Al-though the interchange format is standardized, every once in a while the systems just can’t communicate.
  • Web-based image sharing system. This consists of a web server-based software application available via the internet that allows subscribing hospitals to sign on and share images. Referring hospitals can upload images from their PACS systems for free, and the receiving hospital can view the images and/or download into their own system. Advantage: these products are simple to set up, and easy to use after just a little training. Compatibility is very high, and the services are continually working to ensure it. Downside: expensive. Depending on specifics, the annual subscription may be up to $100K per year, and is generally footed by the receiving trauma center.

Is a web-based solution worth it? MetroHealth in Cleveland looked at this over five years ago, and published their results in 2015. They looked at their experience pre- and post-implementation and found the following:

  • Three years of transfer data prior to the web system implementation was compared to one year of experience after
  • CT imaging decreased at both referring and receiving hospitals across the study period
  • Repeat scan rate decreased from 38% to 28%. Repeat head scans were the major driver at 21%.
  • Cost of reimaging dropped from about $1000 per patient to $600

Bottom line: As a referring hospital, it is your responsibility to ensure that the (hopefully) few images you obtain make it to the upstream trauma center. Although hard copy (CD) is the cheapest, it is also the least reliable. Work with your radiology and IT departments to determine which electronic solution is best for you. Some states and regional trauma systems help subsidize or provide a web-based solution for their member hospitals.

Reference: Implementation of an image sharing system significantly reduced repeat computed tomographic imaging in a regional trauma system. J Trauma 80(1):51-56, 2016.