4.3 Article

Major trauma and urban cyclists: physiological status and injury profile

期刊

EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 32-37

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2011-200966

关键词

-

资金

  1. RCS/Philip King Charitable Settlement Trust
  2. Trauma Outcomes Grant Barts
  3. London Charity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Pedal cycling in cities has the potential to deliver significant health and economic benefits for individuals and society. Safety is the main concern for potential cyclists although the statistical risk of death is low. Little is known about the severity of injuries sustained by city cyclists and their outcome. Aim The aim of this study was to characterise the physiological status and injury profile of cyclists admitted to our urban major trauma centre (MTC). Methods Database analysis of cyclist casualties between 2004 and 2009. The physiological parameters examined were admission systolic blood pressure (SBP), admission base deficit and prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale. Results 265 cyclists required full trauma-team activation. 82% were injured during a collision with a motorised vehicle. The majority (73%) had collided with a car or a heavy goods vehicle (HGV). These casualties formed the cohort for further analysis. Cyclists who collided with an HGV were more severely injured and had a higher mortality rate. Low SBP and high base deficit indicate that haemorrhagic shock is a key feature of HGV casualties. Conclusion Collision with any vehicle can result in death or serious injury to a cyclist. Injury patterns vary with the type of vehicle involved. HGVs were associated with severe injuries and death as a result of uncontrollable haemorrhage. Awareness of this injury profile may aid prehospital management and expedite transfer to MTC care. Rapid haemorrhage control may salvage some, but not all, of these casualties. The need for continued collision prevention strategies and long-term outcome data collection in trauma patients is highlighted.

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

4.3
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