Israel Medical Association Journal

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.

_______________________________

Background: The exact value of follow-up ultrasonogra­phy and computed tomography in the non-operative manage­ment of blunt splenic injuries is not yet defined. Although follow-up studies have been recommended to detect possible complications of the initial injury, evidence shows that routine follow-up CT scans usually do not affect management of these patients.

Objective: To determine whether follow-up imaging influences the management of patients with blunt splenic injury.

Methods: Between 1995 and 1999, 155 trauma patients were admitted with splenic trauma to a major trauma center. Excluded from the study were trauma patients with penetrating injuries, children, and those who underwent immediate laparotomy due to hemodynamic instability or associated injuries. The remaining trauma patients were managed conservatively. Splenic injury was suspected by focused abdominal sonography for trauma, upon admission, and confirmed by CT scan. The severity of splenic injury was graded from I to V. The clinical outcome was obtained from medical records.

Results: We identified 32 adult patients (27 males and 5 females) with blunt splenic injuries who were managed non-operatively. In two patients it was not successful, and splenectomy was performed because of hemodynamic dete­rioration. The remaining 30 stable patients were divided into two groups: those who had only the initial ultrasound and CT scan with no follow-up studies (n= 8), and those who under­went repeat follow-up ultrasound or CT scan studies (n = 22). The severity of injury was similar in both groups. In the second group follow-up studies showed normal spleens in 2 patients, improvement in 11, no change in 8, and deterioration in one. All patients in both groups were managed successfully with good clinical outcome.

Conclusion: In the present series the follow-up radiologi­cal studies did not affect patient management. Follow-up imaging can be omitted in clinically stable patients with blunt splenic trauma grade I-III.