Israel Medical Association Journal

Objectives: To evaluate the upper extremity injury pattern of attacks on civilian targets, comparing bomb explosion injuries to gunshot injuries and their functional recovery using standard outcome measures.

Methods: Of 157 patients admitted to the hospital between 2000 and 2004, 72 (46%) sustained explosion injuries and 85 (54%) gunshot injuries. The trauma registry files were reviewed and the patients completed the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and Short Form-12 (SF-12) after a minimum period of 1 year.

Results: Of the 157 patients, 72 (46%) had blast injuries and 85 (54%) had shooting injuries. The blast casualties had higher Injury Severity Scores (47% over a score of 16 vs. 22%, P = 0.02) and higher percent of patients treated in intensive care units (47% vs. 28%, P = 0.02). Although the Abbreviated Injury Scale score of the upper extremity injury was similar in the two groups, the blast casualties were found to have more bilateral and complex soft tissue injuries and were treated surgically more often. No difference was found in the SF-12 or DASH scores between the groups at follow up.  

Conclusions: The casualties with upper extremity blast injuries were more severely injured and sustained more bilateral and complex soft tissue injuries to the upper extremity. However, the rating of the local injury to the isolated limb is similar, as was the subjective functional recovery.

Background: Trauma management includes the care provided both in hospital and by emergency medical systems in the community. In many cases it is the parents who decide where to take an injured child for care, depending on the circumstances and severity of the injury, the personal characteristics of the injured or the carer and the availability and accessibility of services.

Objectives: To examine the use of pre-hospitalization services and reasons for their use by children and adolescents according to the injury and personal characteristics.

Methods: The study group comprised 924 Israeli citizens aged 0–17 years hospitalized for injuries in six hospitals across Israel. Carers were interviewed in the hospital regarding the circumstances of the injury event, the use of pre-hospitalization services, and sociodemographic characteristics. Data on the cause and nature of the injury were obtained from the hospital records.

Results: The proportion of severe injuries (Injury Severity Score 16+) was higher in Arab children than Jewish children (15% and 9% respectively). Sixty-three percent of the Arab children and 39% of the Jewish children used community services prior to hospitalization. The odds ratio of proceeding directly to the hospital was 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.69, for the Arab compared to the Jewish children, controlling for severity, cause and nature of the injury, sociodemographic characteristics, and the reported availability of ambulance services.

Conclusions: More Arab than Jewish carers tended to seek care in the community for an injured child, but the effect of personal characteristics on seeking care was similar in both population groups. Issues of availability and accessibility of services may explain the differences.

Background: Head injuries, especially in young children, are frequent and may cause long-lasting impairments.

Objectives: To investigate the outcome of head and other injuries caused by diverse mechanisms and of varied severity.

Methods: The population consisted of Jews and Arabs (n=792), aged 0–17 years old, hospitalized for injuries in six hospitals in Israel. Caregivers were interviewed during hospitalization regarding circumstances of the injury and sociodemographic variables. Information on injury mechanism, profile and severity, and length of hospitalization was gathered from the medical files. Five months post-injury the caregivers were interviewed by phone regarding physical limitations and stress symptoms.

 Results: Head injuries occurred in 60% of the children, and of these, 22.2% suffered traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness (type 1). Among the rest, 22% of Jewish children and 28% of Arab children remained with at least one activity limitation, and no statistically significant differences were found among those with head or other injuries. The odds ratio for at least two stress symptoms was higher for children involved in transport-related injuries (OR[1] 2.70, 95% confidence interval 1.38–5.28) than for other mechanisms, controlling for injury profile. No association was found between stress symptoms and injury severity.

Conclusions: Most children had recovered by 5 months after the injury. Residual activity limitations were no different between those with head or with other injuries. Stress symptoms were related to transport-related injuries, but not to the presence of TBI[2] or injury severity.

Background: Trauma is viewed by many as a global problem. The phenomenon of similar outcomes within differing healthcare delivery systems can illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of various trauma systems as well as the effects of these characteristics on patient outcome.

Objectives: To compare and contrast demographic and injury characteristics as well as patient outcomes of two urban/suburban trauma centers, one in Israel and the other in the United States.

Methods: Study data were obtained from the trauma registries of two trauma centers. Demographic variables, injury characteristics and outcomes were compared statistically between registries.

Results: Significant differences between the registries were found in demographic variables (age), injury characteristics (Injury Severity Score and mechanism of injury), and outcome (mortality and length of stay). Age and Injury Severity Score were found to be significant predictors of outcome in both registries. The Glasgow Coma Score was found to contribute to patient outcomes more than the ISS[1]. Differences were found in the relative impact of injury and demographic factors on outcomes between the registries. After including the influence of these factors on patient outcomes, significant differences still remained between the outcomes of the trauma centers.

Conclusions: Despite possible explanations for these differences, true comparisons between centers are problematic.

_______________________________