Champion Howard R, Lombardo Louis V, Shair Ellen Kalin
SimQuest LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
J Trauma. 2009 Aug;67(2):350-7. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181aabdc7.
The objective of this article was to review the importance of vehicle rollover as a field triage criterion. In 1987, field triage criteria were developed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma that have been propagated repeatedly over the subsequent 20+ years. The field triage decision scheme is based on abnormal physiology, obvious abnormal anatomy, mechanism of injury likely to result in severe injury, and other factors (age, etc.) and was supported by available science at that time. In 2005, the triage scheme was revised by a committee, and vehicle rollover as a crash scene triage criterion was dropped in 2006.
The medical literature and data from the Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatal Accident Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling System were analyzed to determine the contribution of rollover to morbidity and mortality.
Vehicle rollovers represent a small but significant percentage of crashes; of the almost 12 million vehicle crashes reported by NHTSA in 2004, only 2.4% were rollovers, but these accounted for one-third of all crash-related occupant deaths and about 25,000 serious injuries every year. Rollovers are associated with the second highest number of vehicle occupant deaths by crash mode, three times the risk of injury when compared with other impact directions (p < 0.0001), specific types of injury such as head and spinal cord injuries, and a risk of death >15 times the risk in nonrollover crashes.
The data and literature unequivocally show a strong and disproportionate association between vehicle rollover and injury severity and death. Because it is difficult to devise simple, accurate decision rules for point of wounding and vehicle crash scene triage, simple, powerful relationships should be used when possible. Thus, the exclusion of rollover as a triage criterion seems to be ill advised.
本文的目的是回顾车辆翻滚作为现场分诊标准的重要性。1987年,美国外科医师学会创伤委员会制定了现场分诊标准,在随后的20多年里不断传播。现场分诊决策方案基于异常生理学、明显的异常解剖学、可能导致重伤的损伤机制以及其他因素(年龄等),并得到了当时现有科学的支持。2005年,一个委员会对分诊方案进行了修订,2006年车辆翻滚作为碰撞现场分诊标准被取消。
分析医学文献以及来自美国运输部/国家公路交通安全管理局(NHTSA)致命事故报告系统和国家汽车抽样系统的数据,以确定翻滚对发病率和死亡率的影响。
车辆翻滚在撞车事故中所占比例虽小但意义重大;在NHTSA于2004年报告的近1200万起车辆撞车事故中,只有2.4%是翻滚事故,但这些事故占所有与撞车相关的乘员死亡人数的三分之一,每年导致约25000人受重伤。按碰撞模式计算,翻滚导致的车辆乘员死亡人数位居第二,与其他碰撞方向相比,受伤风险高出三倍(p<0.0001),还会导致特定类型的损伤,如头部和脊髓损伤,死亡风险比非翻滚撞车事故高出15倍以上。
数据和文献明确显示,车辆翻滚与损伤严重程度和死亡之间存在强烈且不成比例的关联。由于难以制定简单、准确的受伤点和车辆碰撞现场分诊决策规则,应尽可能使用简单而有力的关联关系。因此,将翻滚排除在分诊标准之外似乎是不明智的。