4.5 Article

Major trauma in older persons

期刊

BJS OPEN
卷 2, 期 5, 页码 310-318

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.80

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [1029983, 545926]
  2. Department of Health and Human Services, State Government of Victoria [FT170100048]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council
  4. Transport Accident Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Globally, populations are ageing, creating challenges for trauma system design. Despite this, little is known about causes of injury and long-term outcomes in older injured patients. This study aims to describe temporal trends in the incidence, causes and functional outcomes of major trauma in older adults. Methods: The population-based Victorian State Trauma Registry was used to identify patients with major trauma aged 65 years and older with a date of injury between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016. Temporal trends in population-based incidence rates were evaluated. Functional outcome was measured using the Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended. Results: There were 9250 older adults with major trauma during the study period. Low falls were the most common mechanism of injury (62.5 per cent), followed by transport-related events (22.2 per cent) and high falls (9.5 per cent). The number of patients with major trauma aged 65 years and older more than doubled from 2007 to 2016, and the incidence increased by 4.3 per cent per year (incidence rate ratio 1.043, 95 per cent c.i. 1.035 to 1.050; P < 0.001). At 12 months after injury, 41.8 per cent of older adults with major trauma had died, and 52.2 per cent of those who survived to hospital discharge were not living independently. Conclusions: The number and proportion of older adults with major trauma are increasing rapidly and this will impact on trauma system design. Given the poor long-term outcomes, there needs to be greater emphasis on ensuring that appropriate interventions are targeted to the right patients and enhanced efforts in primary prevention.

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

4.5
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