Haut Elliott R, Kalish Brian T, Efron David T, Haider Adil H, Stevens Kent A, Kieninger Alicia N, Cornwell Edward E, Chang David C
Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, 625 Osler, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
J Trauma. 2010 Jan;68(1):115-20; discussion 120-1. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181c9ee58.
Previous studies have suggested that prehospital spine immobilization provides minimal benefit to penetrating trauma patients but takes valuable time, potentially delaying definitive trauma care. We hypothesized that penetrating trauma patients who are spine immobilized before transport have higher mortality than nonimmobilized patients.
We performed a retrospective analysis of penetrating trauma patients in the National Trauma Data Bank (version 6.2). Multiple logistic regression was used with mortality as the primary outcome measure. We compared patients with versus without prehospital spine immobilization, using patient demographics, mechanism (stab vs. gunshot), physiologic and anatomic injury severity, and other prehospital procedures as covariates. Subset analysis was performed based on Injury Severity Score category, mechanism, and blood pressure. We calculated a number needed to treat and number needed to harm for spine immobilization.
In total, 45,284 penetrating trauma patients were studied; 4.3% of whom underwent spine immobilization. Overall mortality was 8.1%. Unadjusted mortality was twice as high in spine-immobilized patients (14.7% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001). The odds ratio of death for spine-immobilized patients was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.35-3.13) compared with nonimmobilized patients. Subset analysis showed consistent trends in all populations. Only 30 (0.01%) patients had incomplete spinal cord injury and underwent operative spine fixation. The number needed to treat with spine immobilization to potentially benefit one patient was 1,032. The number needed to harm with spine immobilization to potentially contribute to one death was 66.
Prehospital spine immobilization is associated with higher mortality in penetrating trauma and should not be routinely used in every patient with penetrating trauma.
既往研究表明,院前脊柱固定对穿透性创伤患者益处甚微,但耗费宝贵时间,可能会延迟确定性创伤治疗。我们推测,转运前接受脊柱固定的穿透性创伤患者的死亡率高于未固定患者。
我们对国家创伤数据库(6.2版)中的穿透性创伤患者进行了回顾性分析。采用多因素逻辑回归分析,将死亡率作为主要结局指标。我们比较了接受与未接受院前脊柱固定的患者,将患者人口统计学特征、致伤机制(刺伤与枪伤)、生理和解剖损伤严重程度以及其他院前处理措施作为协变量。根据损伤严重程度评分类别、致伤机制和血压进行亚组分析。我们计算了脊柱固定的治疗需人数和伤害需人数。
共研究了45284例穿透性创伤患者;其中4.3%的患者接受了脊柱固定。总体死亡率为8.1%。未调整的死亡率在脊柱固定患者中是未固定患者的两倍(14.7%对7.2%,p<0.001)。与未固定患者相比,脊柱固定患者的死亡比值比为2.06(95%CI:1.35 - 3.13)。亚组分析显示在所有人群中均有一致趋势。仅30例(0.01%)患者存在不完全性脊髓损伤并接受了脊柱手术固定。脊柱固定潜在使1例患者获益所需治疗的患者数为1032例。脊柱固定潜在导致1例死亡所需伤害的患者数为66例。
院前脊柱固定与穿透性创伤患者的较高死亡率相关,不应在每例穿透性创伤患者中常规使用。