4.4 Article

A critical appraisal of emergency resuscitative thoracotomy in a Western European level 1 trauma centre: a 13-year experience

期刊

UPDATES IN SURGERY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01667-5

关键词

Emergency resuscitative thoracotomy; Blunt trauma; Penetrating trauma; Trauma center

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims to identify predictors of postoperative mortality following ERT, and finds that the Injury Severity Score is the only independent predictor. The study suggests that ERT should be utilized for critical patients with penetrating injuries and blunt trauma.
Emergency Resuscitative Thoracotomy (ERT) is a lifesaving procedure in selected patients. Outcome mostly in blunt trauma is believed to be poor. The primary aim of this study was to determine the predictors of postoperative mortality following ERT. We retrospectively reviewed 34 patients >= 18 years who underwent ERT at San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital (Rome, Italy) between January 2009 and December 2022 with traumatic arrest for blunt or penetrating injuries. Of 34 ERT, 28 (82.4%) were for blunt trauma and 6 (17.6%) were for penetrating trauma. Injury Severity Score (p-value 0.014), positive E-FAST (p-value 0.023), Systolic Blood Pressure (p-value 0.001), lactate arterial blood (p-value 0.012), pH arterial blood (p-value 0.007), and bicarbonate arterial blood (p-value < 0.001) were significantly associated with postoperative mortality in a univariate model. After adjustment, the only independent predictor of postoperative mortality was Injury Severity Score (p-value 0.048). Our experience suggests that ERT is a technique that should be utilized for patients with critical penetrating injuries and blunt trauma in patients in extremis. Our study highlights as negative prognostic factors high values of ISS and lactate arterial blood, a positive E-FAST, and low values of Systolic Blood Pressure, pH arterial blood and bicarbonate arterial blood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据