The latest medical research on Trauma

Top-tier general and specialty scientific journals serve as a bellwether for national research priorities. We hypothesize that military-relevant publications are underrepresented in the scientific literature and that such publications decrease significantly during peacetime.

We identified high impact journals in the fields of Medicine, Surgery and Critical Care and developed Boolean searches for military-focused topics using National Library of Medicine Subject Headings terms. A PubMed search from 1950 to 2020 returned the number of research publications in relevant journals and the rate of military-focused publications by year. Rates of military publications were compared between peacetime and wartime. Publication rate trends were modeled with a quadratic function controlling for the start of active conflict and total casualty numbers. Baseline proportions of military physicians relative to the civilian sector served to estimate expected publication rates. Comparisons were performed using Pearson's Chi Square and Mann-Whitney U test, with p < 0.05 considered a significant difference.

From 1950 to 2020, a total of 716,340 manuscripts were published in the journals queried. Of these, military-relevant manuscripts totaled 4,052 (0.57%). We found a significant difference in the rate of publication during times of peace and times of war (0.40% vs. 0.69%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis found significantly reduced rates of publication in medical and critical care journals during peacetime. For each conflict, the percentage of military-focused publications peaked during periods of war but then receded below baseline levels within a median of 2.5 years (interquartile range 1.5-3.8 years) during peacetime. The proportion of military-focused publications never reached the current proportion of military physicians in the workforce.

There is marked reduction in rates of publication for military-focused articles in high impact journals during peacetime. Military-focused articles are underrepresented in high-impact journals. Investigators of military-relevant topics and editors of high-impact journals should seek to close this gap.

Major trauma has a significant effect on Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). It is unclear, however, which factors most affect HR-QoL. This study aims to evaluate HR-QoL after severe injury in Finland and determine how different injury patterns and patient-related factors, such as level of education and socioeconomic group, are associated with HR-QoL. We also assess how well different injury scoring systems associate with HR-QoL.

We retrospectively analyzed 325 severely injured trauma patients (aged ≥ 18 years, New Injury Severity Score, (NISS) ≥ 16, and alive at 1 year after injury) treated in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or High Dependence Unit (HDU) of Tampere University Hospital (TAUH) from 2013 through 2016. HR-QoL was assessed with the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire completed during ICU stay and 1 year after injury. HR-QOL index values and reported problems were further compared with Finnish population norms.

The severity of the injury (measured by ISS and NISS) had no significant association with the decrease in HR-QoL. Length of ICU stay had a weak negative correlation with post-injury HR-QoL and a weak positive correlation with the change in HR-QoL. The largest mean decrease in HR-QoL occurred in patients with spinal cord injury (Spine AIS ≥ 4) (-0.338 (SD 0.136)), spine injury in general (Spine AIS ≥ 2 (-0.201 (SD 0.279)), and a lower level of education (-0.157 (SD 0.231)). Patient's age, sex, or socioeconomic status did not seem to associate with smaller or greater changes in HR-QoL.

After serious injury, many patients have permanent disabilities which reduce HR-QoL. Injury scoring systems intended for assessing the risk for death did not seem to associate with HR-QoL and are not, therefore, a meaningful way to predict the future HR-QoL of a severely injured patient. Recovery from the injury seems to be weaker in poorer educated patients and patients with spinal cord injury, and these patients may benefit from targeted additional measures. Although there were significant differences in baseline HR-QoL levels between different socioeconomic groups, recovery from injury appears to be similar, which is likely due to equal access to high-quality trauma care.

Leak following surgical repair of traumatic duodenal injuries results in prolonged hospitalization and oftentimes nil per os(NPO) treatment. Parenteral nutrition(PN) has known morbidity; however, duodenal leak(DL) patients often have complex injuries and hospital courses resulting in barriers to enteral nutrition(EN). We hypothesized EN alone would be associated with 1)shorter duration until leak closure and 2)less infectious complications and shorter hospital length of stay(HLOS) compared to PN.

IV.

There were 113 patients with DL: 43 EN, 22 PN, and 48 EN + PN. Patients were young(median age 28 years-old) males(83.2%) with penetrating injuries(81.4%). There was no difference in injury severity or critical illness among the groups, however there were more pancreatic injuries among PN groups. EN patients had less days NPO compared to both PN groups(12 days[IQR23] vs 40[54] vs 33[32],p = <0.001). Time until leak closure was less in EN patients when comparing the three groups(7 days[IQR14.5] vs 15[20.5] vs 25.5[55.8],p = 0.008). EN patients had less intra-abdominal abscesses, bacteremia, and days with drains than the PN groups(all p < 0.05). HLOS was shorter among EN patients vs both PN groups(27 days[24] vs 44[62] vs 45[31],p = 0.001). When controlling for predictors of leak, regression analysis demonstrated EN was associated with shorter HLOS(β -24.9, 95%CI -39.0 to -10.7,p < 0.001).

EN was associated with a shorter duration until leak closure, less infectious complications, and shorter length of stay. Contrary to some conventional thought, PN was not associated with decreased time until leak closure. We therefore suggest EN should be the preferred choice of nutrition in patients with duodenal leaks whenever feasible.

Emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness has been associated with lower mortality for injured children but has historically been suboptimal in non-pediatric trauma centers. Over the past decade, the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) has invested resources in improving ED pediatric readiness. This study aimed to quantify current trauma center pediatric readiness and identify associations with center-level characteristics to target further efforts to guide improvement.

Epidemiologic, Level III.

The wPRS was reported for 77% (749/973) of centers that contributed to the NTDB. ED Pediatric Readiness was highest in ACS level one pediatric trauma centers (PTCs), but wPRS in the highest quartile was seen among all adult and pediatric trauma center types. Independent predictors of high wPRS included ACS level one PTC verification, pediatric trauma volume, and the presence of a PICU. Higher-level adult trauma centers and pediatric trauma centers were more likely to have pediatric-specific physician requirements, pediatric emergency care coordinators, and pediatric quality improvement initiatives.

ED pediatric readiness in trauma centers remains variable and is predictably lower in centers that lack inpatient resources. There is, however, no aspect of ED pediatric readiness that is constrained to high-level pediatric facilities, and a highest quartile wPRS was achieved in all types of adult centers in our study. Ongoing efforts to improve pediatric readiness for initial stabilization at non-pediatric centers are needed, particularly in centers that routinely transfer children out.