Andruszkow H, Pape H-C, Sellei R, Hildebrand F
Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland.
Unfallchirurg. 2013 May;116(5):451-64. doi: 10.1007/s00113-012-2343-4.
Treatment of patients with multiple trauma is known to require validated established algorithms, experienced medical staff and intensive interdisciplinary cooperation between the medical disciplines. In order to predict the risk for potential complications and mortality, adequate assessment of patients with multiple trauma is crucial for further treatment decisions. Therefore, different scoring systems have been developed to assess injury severity and to predict the potential outcome after multiple trauma. These scores have in common that the severity of trauma is converted to a numeric value simplifying the physiological reality in general. But the anatomic as well as physiological impact after multiple trauma can hardly be represented comprehensively by a single numeric value. Consequently, the established scores can only be safely interpreted, if the individual limitations of each scoring system are known.
众所周知，对多发伤患者的治疗需要经过验证的既定算法、经验丰富的医护人员以及各医学学科之间紧密的跨学科合作。为了预测潜在并发症和死亡率的风险，对多发伤患者进行充分评估对于进一步的治疗决策至关重要。因此，已经开发了不同的评分系统来评估损伤严重程度并预测多发伤后的潜在结局。这些评分系统的共同之处在于，创伤严重程度被转换为一个数值，总体上简化了生理现实。但是，多发伤后的解剖学和生理学影响很难用单一数值全面表示。因此，只有了解每个评分系统的个体局限性，才能安全地解释既定的评分。
