Wang Chunrong, Tian Songyao, Wang Chu
Beijing Water Conservancy Hospital, Beijing, China.
Daxing District Hospital of Integrative Medicine, Beijing, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Jun 20;104(25):e42783. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000042783.
As the aging population progresses, more and more traumatic events involve the elderly. Given the systemic "frailty" of the elderly, there is currently no universally accepted method for geriatric trauma assessment. The existing methods for assessing geriatric trauma patients - the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), the Elderly Mortality After Trauma (EMAT), and Geriatric Trauma Mortality Score (GERtality)-were reviewed. GTOS, GERtality and EMAT have 3, 5 and 26 parameters, respectively. EMAT contains almost every aspect of clinical scenarios, such as demographic data, comorbidities, injury type, and abnormal physiologic markers, and seems to be more reliable than the other 2. GTOS contains only age, severity of injury and the need for blood transfusion. GERtality covers age, comorbidities, severity of craniocerebral injury, severity of injury, and hemorrhage. However, EMAT calculation is complex, while GERtality and GTOS are user friendly. Our review shows that each of 3 scores has limitations and lacks further validation. GERtality contains more "fragile" information than GTOS and is more user friendly than EMAT. It might be more practical clinically. More research is needed in geriatric trauma evaluation.
随着人口老龄化的加剧,越来越多的创伤事件涉及老年人。鉴于老年人的全身性“脆弱性”,目前尚无普遍接受的老年创伤评估方法。本文回顾了现有的老年创伤患者评估方法——老年创伤结局评分(GTOS)、创伤后老年死亡率(EMAT)和老年创伤死亡率评分(GERtality)。GTOS、GERtality和EMAT分别有3个、5个和26个参数。EMAT几乎涵盖了临床情况的各个方面,如人口统计学数据、合并症、损伤类型和异常生理指标,似乎比其他两种方法更可靠。GTOS仅包含年龄、损伤严重程度和输血需求。GERtality涵盖年龄、合并症、颅脑损伤严重程度、损伤严重程度和出血情况。然而,EMAT计算复杂,而GERtality和GTOS使用方便。我们的综述表明,这三种评分方法都有局限性且缺乏进一步验证。GERtality比GTOS包含更多“脆弱”信息,且比EMAT更便于使用。它在临床上可能更实用。老年创伤评估还需要更多的研究。