What Is The Safest Extrication Method From A Car Crash?

October 22, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Today’s post is directed to all those prehospital trauma professionals out there.

Car crashes account for a huge number of injuries worldwide. About 40% of people involved are trapped in the vehicle. And unfortunately, entrapped individuals are much more likely to die.

There are four basic groups (and their category in parentheses) of trapped car occupants:

those who can self-extricate or extricate with minimal assistance (self-extrication)
individuals who cannot self-extricate due to pain or their psychological response to the event but can extricate with assistance (assisted extrication)
people who are advised or choose not to self-extricate due to concern for exacerbating an injury, primarily spine (medically trapped)
those who are physically trapped by the wreckage who require disentanglement (disentanglement and rescue)

Prehospital providers have several choices to help extricate patients in the second and third categories: encourage self-extrication, rapid extrication without tools, or traditional extrication, where the vehicle is cut away to allow egress. The fourth category always requires tools for extrication.

Although rescue services try to minimize or mitigate unnecessary patient movement, stuff happens. Large and forceful movement is considered high risk, but smaller movements do occur. This is of particular concern in patients who might have a spine injury.

There have been several recent papers suggesting there might be greater benefits to self-extrication. A group of authors in the UK and South Africa designed a biomechanical study to test these extrication methods in healthy volunteers.

The authors wanted to determine exactly how much movement occurred using the various extrication techniques. The volunteers were fitted with an Inertial Measurement Unit, which measures the orientation of the head, neck, torso, and sacrum in real-time. The IMU can detect even minimal changes in the orientation of the body. The volunteers were placed in a standard 5-door hatchback sedans that were prepared for each type of extrication, as seen above.

Here are the factoids:

A total of 230 extrications were performed for analysis
The smallest amount of maximal and total movement of body segments was seen in the self-extrication group
The greatest amount of movement was found in the rapid extrication group, with 4x to 5x the movement in the self-extrication group
The difference in body movement between the self-extrication group and all others was significant
In general, movement increased as extrication techniques progressed from roof removal to B post removal to rapid extrication

The authors concluded that self-extrication resulted in the smallest amount of movement and the fastest extrication time and should be the preferred technique.

Bottom line: This is the first study that specifically evaluated spinal movement occurring with commonly used extrication techniques. Other similar studies have used various measurement techniques, none of which are as precise as this. One potential weakness with this one is that it used healthy volunteers. But obviously, it is not practical to attempt anything like this with real, injured patients.

Since we know that patients trapped in cars are more likely to die, time is of the essence. This study shows that self-extrication is both fast and safe with respect to spinal movement. The information will assist our prehospital colleagues in making the best decisions possible when faced with patients trapped in their cars.

Reference: Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers. Scand J Trauma open access 30: article 7, 2022.

Trauma Center

Nonsurgical Admissions And The Nelson Score

October 18, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

All trauma centers admit some of their patients to nonsurgical services. This usually occurs when patients have medical comorbidities that overshadow their injuries. Unfortunately, the decision-making that goes into balancing the medical versus trauma issues is not always straightforward. The fear is that if trauma patients are inappropriately placed on a nonsurgical service, mortality and morbidity may be higher because their injuries may not receive adequate attention.

To take some of the variability out of the decision-making process for admitting service, two surgical groups on Long Island created a scoring system that incorporated several parameters described in the ACS Optimal Resource Document (Orange book). Some additional parameters were also included that the authors believed were relevant to the choice of admitting service. Here’s the final list:

The paper’s first author was a nurse, Laura Nelson, and hence this has come to be known as the Nelson Score. Patients with a score of 6 or 7 were considered definitely appropriate for nonsurgical admission. Scores of 4 or 5 were subject to more in-depth review, and those with a score of 3 or less were considered definitely appropriate for trauma service admission. There is no mention of what to do with a score of 6 in the original paper, but I presume it should be almost a slam dunk for considering nonsurgical admission.

The authors evaluated this system’s utility over a two year period. They found that using it placed more patients on the trauma service (nonsurgical admissions decreased from a peak of 28% to somewhere around 10%). They also examined morbidity and mortality statistics between the two types of admissions and found no significant differences.

The concept was further tested by the trauma group at UCHealth in Colorado Springs. They performed a retrospective review of four years of data that included over 2,000 patients. Patients were older (mean 79 years) and nearly all had blunt mechanism. Mean ISS was 9 and the nonsurgical admission rate was 19%. Patients with a Nelson score of 6 or 7 were even older and had more comorbidities.

Regression analysis did not identify admitting service as a predictor of mortality. The authors concluded that using this score is a safe way to objectively identify patients who would benefit from nonsurgical admission.

Bottom line: I have visited a number of hospitals that successfully use the Nelson score to assist with admission service decision-making while the patient is still in the emergency department. The only gray zone is the score of 4 or 5. Each program will need to determine their own cut point so they can make the service decision more objectively.

Trauma programs can also use this tool to expedite PI review of patients who have already been admitted to a nonsurgical service to check appropriateness. If the score is less than 6 further scrutiny is needed to determine if a consult from or transfer to trauma should be recommended.

References:

Nonsurgical Admissions With Traumatic Injury: Medical Patients Are Trauma Patients Too. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 25 (3), 192-195, 2018.
Evaluation of the Nelson criteria as an indicator for nonsurgical admission in trauma patients. Am Surg, 88(7), 1537-1540, 2022.

Thorax

Chest Tube Size: The Argument That Never Dies

October 11, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

I’ve written many posts in the past about the arguments surrounding chest tube size: large bore vs. small bore (pigtail). For the longest time, only a few decent papers were looking into this debate, and subject numbers were small. The best the papers could say was that “small-bore chest tubes are not inferior to large-bore tubes.” Not that this is not the same as saying, “small-bore tubes are better than large-bore tubes.”

But finally, after more than ten years, there has been enough written on the topic that a pass at a systematic review and meta-analysis has been attempted. The University of Miami Ryder Trauma Center group performed a comprehensive review of the topic, spanning literature published through 2022.

Here are the factoids:

A total of 2008 articles were identified, but after careful screening, only 11 articles met predetermined parameters for inclusion
There were 3 randomized, controlled studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 5 retrospective cohort studies
Two pairs of studies had overlapping patients, so only patients in the more recent study of each was included
The authors used CASP scoring to judge the quality and likelihood of bias. Nearly all studies included were of high quality.

And here are the interesting findings:

There was no significant difference in failure rates between small and large tubes (18% vs. 22% )
There were no differences in complication rates (12% vs. 13% )
There was a significantly higher amount of initial drainage with the small tubes (750 cc vs 400 cc) (??)
Although the overall number of complications was the same, there were significantly more insertion complications in the small-bore group (4.4 vs 2.2). These included intra-hepatic placement, malpositioned tubes, kinked tubes, and dislodgement.
Only one study used a validated pain score to measure insertion pain, and there was no difference between the tube sizes
Tube days averaged 1.5 days less in the small-bore group, which was significant. However, this did not impact ICU or hospital length of stay.

Bottom line: There are still significant limitations in this study due to the small number of randomized controlled trials that are yet available. I also worry that there is some selection bias in many of the studies that would cause large-bore tubes to be inserted preferentially into patients with more severe chest trauma, larger hemothorax, or more emergent need for the tube. However, if there were major, major differences, they would probably be starting to rear their heads by now.

The authors of this paper concluded that “small bore tube thoracostomy may be as effective as large bore thoracostomy for the management of patients with hemothorax.” They correctly suggest that guided studies examining which patients are more suited for a specific sized tube. I totally agree.

For now, I still don’t think there is a definitive answer. I recommend that the bedside trauma professional use their judgment regarding patient condition, the magnitude of the chest trauma, and the urgency of the procedure to select a size. They must also consider their expertise with the tube selected to maximize effectiveness and minimize complications.

I’m sure there will be even more to write on this topic. It doesn’t seem to want to die.

Reference: Small versus large-bore thoracostomy for traumatic hemothorax: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 97(4):p 631-638, October 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004412

Abdomen

Activity Guidelines After Solid Organ Injury: How Important Are They?

October 4, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Just about every practice guideline out there regarding liver and spleen injury has some physical activity restrictions associated with it. The accepted dogma is that moving around too much, climbing stairs, lifting objects, or getting tackled while playing rugby could exacerbate the injury and lead to complications or surgery.

But is it true? Activity restrictions after solid organ injury have been around longer than I have been a trauma surgeon. And the more people I poll on what they do, the more and very different answers I get. And there are no decent papers published that look critically at this question. Until now.

A pediatric multi-center study of study on adherence to activity restrictions was published last year. Ten Level I pediatric trauma centers in the US tabulated their experience with solid organ injuries over 3.75 years from 2013 to 2016. Only patients with successful nonoperative management of their injury were included, and those with high-grade renal or pancreatic injuries were excluded.

Since this was a pediatric study, the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) practice guideline was followed (activity restriction = organ injury grade + 2 weeks). Activity restrictions included all sports, any recreational activity with wheels, or any activity involving both feet off the ground. Patients with Grade III-V injuries were seen at an office visit after 2 weeks, and lower grade injuries had a phone follow-up.

Adherence to guidelines was assessed by a follow-up phone call two months after injury. Clinical outcomes assessed at 60 days included an unplanned return to the emergency department (ED), re-admission, complications, and development of new bleeding confirmed by surgery, ultrasound, or computed tomography (CT) at 60 days post-injury.

Here are the factoids:

Of the 1007 patients in the study, some 56% were either excluded (178) or lost to follow-up (463)
Of the remaining 366, roughly 46% had a liver injury, 44% spleen, and the remaining 10% had both
Median age was 10, so this was actually a younger population
76% of patients claimed they abided by the guidelines, 14% said they did not, and 10% “didn’t know.” This means they probably did not.
For the 279 patients who said they adhered to activity restrictions, 13% returned to the ED, and half were admitted to the hospital
Of the 49 patients who admitted they did not follow the guidelines, 8% returned to the ED at some point, and none were readmitted
The most common reasons for returning to ED were abdominal pain, anorexia, fatigue, dizziness, and shoulder pain
There were no delayed operations in either of the groups

Bottom line: There were no significant differences between the compliant and noncompliant groups. Unfortunately, the authors did not include an analysis of the “I don’t know if I complied” group, which would have been interesting. However, there is one issue I always worry about in these low-number-of-subjects studies that don’t show a significant difference between groups. Did they have the statistical power to show such a difference? If not, then we still don’t know the answer. And unfortunately, I’m not able to guess the numbers well enough to do the power calculation for this study.

I am still intrigued by this study! Our trauma program originally set a fixed time period (6 weeks) of limited activity in our practice guideline for pediatric solid organ injury patients. This was reduced based on our experience of no delayed complications and guidance from our sister pediatric trauma center at Children’s Hospital in Minneapolis. We are also moving toward making a similar change to our adult practice guidelines. But even our current guideline of injury grade + 2 weeks is probably too much.

Too many centers wait too long to make changes in their practice guidelines. They bide their time waiting for new, published research that they can lean on for their changes. Unfortunately, they will be waiting for a long time because many of our questions are not interesting enough for acceptance by the usual journals. Rely on the expertise and experience of your colleagues and then make those changes. Be sure to follow with your performance improvement program to make sure that they actually do work as well as you think!

Reference: Adherence to APSA activity restriction guidelines and 60-day clinical outcomes for pediatric blunt liver and splenic injuries (BLSI). J Ped Surg 54:335-339, 2019.

General

Uber / Lyft For Medical Transport???

October 1, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

In this day and age of ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft, it is possible to get a cheap ride virtually anywhere there is car service and a smartphone. And, of course, some people have used these services for transportation to the hospital instead of an ambulance ride. What might the impact of ride services on patient transport be for both patient and EMS?

Ambulance rides are expensive. Depending on region, they may range from $500-$5000. Although insurance may reduce out-of-pocket costs, it can still be costly. So what are the pros vs the cons of using Uber or Lyft for medical transport?

Pros:

Ride shares are inexpensive compared to an ambulance ride
They may arrive more quickly because they tend to circulate around an area, as opposed to using a fixed base
Riders may select their preferred hospital without being overridden by EMS (although it may be an incorrect choice)
May reduce EMS usage for low-acuity patients

Cons:

No professional medical care available during the ride
May end up being slower due to lack of lights and siren
Damage fees of $250+ for messing up the car

A fascinating paper suggests that ambulance service calls decreased by 7% after the introduction of UberX rides. The authors mapped out areas where UberX rides were launching and examined emergency response data in these areas. They used a complex algorithm to examine trends over time in over 700 cities in the US and used several techniques to try to account for other factors. Here is a chart of the very fascinating results:

Bottom line: Uber and Lyft are just another version of the “arrival by private vehicle” paradigm. The use of these services relies on the customer/patient having very good judgment and insight into their medical conditions and care needs. And from personal experience, this is not always the case. I would not encourage the general public to use these services for medical transport, and neither do the companies themselves!

Reference: Did UberX Reduce Ambulance Volume? Health Econ 28(7)L817-829, 2019.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog