Suppr超能文献

通过不同评分系统对肋骨骨折进行量化。

Quantification of rib fractures by different scoring systems.

作者信息

Fokin Alexander, Wycech Joanna, Crawford Maggie, Puente Ivan

机构信息

Delray Medical Center, Delray Beach, Florida.

Delray Medical Center, Delray Beach, Florida; Delray Medical Center, Broward Health Medical Center, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.

出版信息

J Surg Res. 2018 Sep;229:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.025. Epub 2018 Apr 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The three known systems for evaluation of patients with rib fractures are rib fracture score (RFS), chest trauma score (CTS), and RibScore (RS). The aim was to establish critical values for these systems in different patient populations.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study included 1089 patients with rib fractures, from level-1 trauma center; divided into two groups: first group included 620 nongeriatric patients, and second group included 469 geriatric patients (≥65 y.o.). Additional variables included mortality, injury severity score (ISS), hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay (HLOS, ICULOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, rate of pneumonia (PN), tracheostomy, and epidural analgesia.

RESULTS

RFS critical values were 10 for nongeriatric and eight for geriatric patients, CTS were four and six respectively, and RS were one for both. Nongeriatric patients with RFS ≥10 versus RFS <10, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, and tracheostomy (P <0.03). Geriatric patients with RFS ≥8 versus RFS <8, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, and PN (P <0.03). Nongeriatric patients with CTS ≥4 versus CTS <4, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, duration of mechanical ventilation, and PN (P < 0.02). Geriatric patients with CTS ≥6 versus CTS <6 had greater values for all variables (P < 0.01). Both groups with RS ≥1 versus RS <1, had greater values for all variables (P < 0.05). In geriatric group, prediction of PN was good by CTS (c = 0.8) and fair by RFS and RS (c = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians should choose score to match specific population and collected variables. RFS is simple but sensitive in elderly population. CTS is recommended for geriatric patients as it predicts PN the best. RS is recommended for assessment of severely injured patients with high ISS.

摘要

背景

已知的三种评估肋骨骨折患者的系统分别是肋骨骨折评分(RFS)、胸部创伤评分(CTS)和肋骨评分(RS)。目的是确定这些系统在不同患者群体中的临界值。

方法

回顾性队列研究纳入了来自一级创伤中心的1089例肋骨骨折患者;分为两组:第一组包括620例非老年患者,第二组包括469例老年患者(≥65岁)。其他变量包括死亡率、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、住院时间和重症监护病房住院时间(HLOS、ICULOS)、机械通气时间、肺炎发生率(PN)、气管切开术和硬膜外镇痛。

结果

非老年患者的RFS临界值为10,老年患者为8;CTS分别为4和6;RS两者均为1。RFS≥10的非老年患者与RFS<10的患者相比,死亡率、ISS、HLOS、ICULOS和气管切开术发生率更高(P<0.03)。RFS≥8的老年患者与RFS<8的患者相比,死亡率、ISS、HLOS、ICULOS和PN更高(P<0.03)。CTS≥4的非老年患者与CTS<4的患者相比,死亡率、ISS、HLOS、ICULOS、机械通气时间和PN更高(P<0.02)。CTS≥6的老年患者与CTS<6的患者相比,所有变量的值都更大(P<0.01)。RS≥1的两组患者与RS<1的患者相比,所有变量的值都更大(P<0.05)。在老年组中,CTS对PN的预测良好(c=0.8),RFS和RS对PN的预测一般(c=0.7)。

结论

医生应根据特定人群和收集的变量选择评分系统。RFS简单但对老年人群敏感。由于CTS对PN的预测最佳,因此推荐用于老年患者。RS推荐用于评估ISS高的严重受伤患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验