KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 10

Evaluation of firearm injuries by trauma scoring systems in a secondary health care institution

Resul Nusretoğlu
Yunus Dönder
İsmail Biri
Yücel Gültekin
Sayfa
1462–1467
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

However, trauma scoring systems have not been found to be effective in distinguishing patients who require referral to a trauma center.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:BACKGROUND: Scoring systems are widely used in trauma patients and are very important in the care of trauma patients.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:METHODS: Patients brought to Hakkari Yüksekova State Hospital due to FIs between January 2010 and December 2019 were retro- spectively investigated.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:However, trauma scoring systems have not been found to be effective in distinguishing patients who require referral to a trauma center.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2010 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scoring systems are widely used in trauma patients and are very important in the care of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of scoring systems in evaluating the patients who were brought to a hospital without a trauma center due to firearm injuries (FIs) using scoring systems, and the efficacy of these systems in identifying patients who should be treated in a trauma center. METHODS: Patients brought to Hakkari Yüksekova State Hospital due to FIs between January 2010 and December 2019 were retro- spectively investigated. Patients aged 16 and over were included in the study. Patients who were brought to the hospital while deceased and those who did not respond to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital were excluded from the study. In addition, patients who underwent simple outpatient medical intervention were not included in the patient group. Patients were evaluated demographi- cally. The mortality predictions of trauma scoring systems, which are widely used in the evaluation of trauma patients, were examined. In addition, the effectiveness of scoring systems in identifying patients who should be treated in trauma centers was investigated. RESULTS: In the study, 331 patients, 96.9% of whom were male, were evaluated. The patient group consisted of young patients and the median age was 27 (IQR, 24–29) years. A total of 74 (22.4%) patients were referred to trauma referral hospitals for diagnosis and treatment. Mortality occurred in 46 (13.9%) patients. Glasgow coma scale, injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score, new trauma score, and trauma revised ISS were found effective for predicting mortality in patients, and scoring systems were correlated with each other. However, scoring systems were not found effective in distinguishing patients who should be treated in a trauma center. CONCLUSION: Scoring systems are significant in predicting mortality of patients with gunshot wounds. However, trauma scoring systems have not been found to be effective in distinguishing patients who require referral to a trauma center.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Nusretoğlu, R., Dönder, Y., Biri, İ., Gültekin, Y. (2022). Evaluation of firearm injuries by trauma scoring systems in a secondary health care institution. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 10, 1462–1467. https://ajindex.com/articles/644389

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. . Samuel M, Galvagno JR, Massey M, Bouzat P, Vesselinov R, Levy MJ, et al. Correlatıon between the revısed trauma score and ınjury severıty score: Implıcatıons for prehospıtal trauma trıage. Prehosp Emerg Care 2019
  2. 263–70. 2. Esme H, Solak O, Yurumez Y, Yavuz Y, Terzi Y, Sezer M, et al. The prog- nostic importance of trauma scoring systems for blunt thoracic trauma. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007
  3. 190–5. 3. Özkaya Ö, Canlı M, Aysal BK. Basic principles of plastic surgical ap- proach to patients with high energy traumas. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi 2017
  4. 59–69. 4. Baker SP, O’Neill B, HaddonW Jr., Long WB. The injury severity score: A method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care, J Trauma 1974
  5. 187–96. 5. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974
  6. 81–4. 6. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flana- gan ME. A revision of the trauma score. J Trauma 1989
  7. 623–9. 7. Boyd CR, Tolson MA, Copes WS. Evaluating trauma care: The TRISS method. trauma score and the injury severity score. J Trauma 1987
  8. 370–8. 8. Jeong JH, Park YJ, Kim DH, Kim TY, Kang C, Lee SH, et al. The new trauma score (NTS): A modification of the revised trauma score for bet- ter trauma mortality prediction. BMC Surg 2017
  9. Saylam N, Uyanık B, Buz M, Büyükyılmaz T, Demir Y, Gürsoy DA, et al. Gunshot injuries due to terror. Anatol J Emerg Med 2019
  10. 18 23. 10. American College of Surgeons. Advanced trauma life support program for physicians: Advanced Trauma Life Support ATLS. 7th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons
  11. Kirshenbom D, Ben-Zken Z, Albilya N, Niyibizi E, Bala M. Older age, comorbid illnesses, and injury severity affect immediate outcome in el- derly trauma patients. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2017
  12. 146 150. 12. Hink AB, Bonne S, Levy M, Kuhls DA, Allee L, Burke PA, et al. Firearm injury research and epidemiology: A review of the data, their limitations, and how trauma centers can improve firearm injury research. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2019
  13. 678 89. 13. Abe T, Komori A, Shiraishi A, Sugiyama T, Iriyama H, Kainoh, et al. Trauma complications and in-hospital mortality: Failure-to-rescue. Crit Care 2020
  14. Turgut K, Gür A, Güven T, Oğuztürk H. Evaluation of factors related to mortality caused by firearm injury: A retrospective analysis from Malatya, Turkey. Arch Iran Med 2019
  15. 80–4. 15. Pleg K, Aharonson-Daniel L, Stein M, Michaelso