Potenza Bruce M, Hoyt David B, Coimbra Raul, Fortlage Dale, Holbrook Troy, Hollingsworth-Fridlund Peggy
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, 92103-8896, USA.
J Trauma. 2004 Jan;56(1):68-75. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000101490.32972.9F.
Analysis of the mechanism and severity of injury over time may permit a more focused planning of acute care and trauma prevention programs.
A retrospective, population-based study examining severe traumatic injury in a single county was undertaken. Three overlapping data sets were used to form a composite injury data set.
There were 55,664 patients included in the study. A total of 40,897 (73.5%) patients survived and 14,767 (26.5%) died. Of those patients who died, 8,910 (60.3%) died in the field and were not transported to a trauma center. There was an increase in the mean age of all trauma victims (3 years) and an increase of 5 years in fatally injured patients. The mean Injury Severity Score decreased from 14.7 to 11.6 (p < 0.01); however, Injury Severity Score for fatal patients remained constant (39.7). The overall injury rate remained unchanged (195 per 10(5)), whereas the fatal injury rate decreased by 22% (45.9 per 10(5)) over the 11-year study period. The leading cause of injury was motor vehicle crash, followed by assault. The leading cause of fatal injury was suicide, followed by homicide.
A combination of three independent injury data sources generated a composite data set of serious and fatal injury. This regional injury analysis was the most comprehensive overview of injury in our region. Important observations included the following: there has been no change in the overall incidence of severe injury within our county; the incidence of fatal traumatic injury has significantly decreased; the leading causes of nonfatal injury do not correlate with the rank order of fatal injury; intentional injury was the leading cause of injury deaths; and scene fatalities represent a poorly studied group of patients who may benefit from primary prevention and injury control research.
对损伤机制及随时间推移的严重程度进行分析,可能有助于更有针对性地规划急性护理和创伤预防项目。
开展了一项基于人群的回顾性研究,调查单个县的严重创伤性损伤情况。使用三个重叠的数据集形成一个综合损伤数据集。
该研究共纳入55664例患者。共有40897例(73.5%)患者存活,14767例(26.5%)死亡。在那些死亡的患者中,8910例(60.3%)在现场死亡,未被送往创伤中心。所有创伤受害者的平均年龄增加了3岁,致命伤患者的平均年龄增加了5岁。平均损伤严重程度评分从14.7降至11.6(p<0.01);然而,致命患者的损伤严重程度评分保持不变(39.7)。在11年的研究期间,总体损伤率保持不变(每10⁵人中有195例),而致命损伤率下降了22%(每10⁵人中有45.9例)。损伤的主要原因是机动车碰撞,其次是袭击。致命伤的主要原因是自杀,其次是杀人。
三个独立的损伤数据源相结合,生成了一个严重和致命损伤的综合数据集。这种区域损伤分析是我们地区对损伤情况最全面的概述。重要观察结果如下:我们县内严重损伤的总体发病率没有变化;致命创伤性损伤的发病率显著下降;非致命伤的主要原因与致命伤的排名顺序不相关;故意伤害是损伤死亡的主要原因;现场死亡患者是一组研究较少的患者,他们可能从一级预防和损伤控制研究中受益。