• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

损伤严重度评分在颅脑损伤中的应用。

Use of the Injury Severity Score in head injury.

作者信息

Cooke R S, McNicholl B P, Byrnes D P

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.

出版信息

Injury. 1995 Jul;26(6):399-400. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(95)00064-g.

DOI:10.1016/0020-1383(95)00064-g
PMID:7558262
Abstract

As part of a study of the early management of severe head injury, the use of the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Injury Severity Score (ISS) and TRISS was investigated. These injury scores were compared in correlating with outcome at one year as assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) and mortality. One hundred and thirty-one patients had a severe head injury, as defined by an ISS of 16 or higher, in whom the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) for craniocerebral injury was 3 or higher. Seventy-eight of these also fulfilled the accepted GCS definition of severe head injury (GCS less than 8 with no eye-opening). Thirty-eight had evacuation of an acute intracranial haematoma; 26 of these patients would not have been classified as severe head injury by GCS. The overall mortality rate was 38 per cent, and 24 per cent for those transferred to the neurosurgical unit. TRISS was slightly better than GCS for predicting outcome based on both GOS and mortality, however this difference was not significant. TRISS identified patients who died that are not considered as severe head injury by GCS. Use of TRISS allows the effects of systemic factors and other injuries to be taken into account when assessing severity of head injury.

摘要

作为重度颅脑损伤早期处理研究的一部分,对格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)、损伤严重度评分(ISS)和创伤严重度特征评分(TRISS)的应用进行了调查。将这些损伤评分与通过格拉斯哥预后评分(GOS)评估的一年预后及死亡率进行相关性比较。131例患者为重度颅脑损伤,定义为ISS为16或更高,其中颅脑损伤的简明损伤评分(AIS)为3或更高。其中78例也符合公认的重度颅脑损伤GCS定义(GCS小于8且无睁眼)。38例进行了急性颅内血肿清除术;其中26例患者按GCS分类不属于重度颅脑损伤。总体死亡率为38%,转入神经外科病房的患者死亡率为24%。基于GOS和死亡率,TRISS在预测预后方面略优于GCS,然而这种差异并不显著。TRISS识别出了那些按GCS不被视为重度颅脑损伤但死亡的患者。使用TRISS在评估颅脑损伤严重程度时能够考虑全身因素和其他损伤的影响。

相似文献

1
Use of the Injury Severity Score in head injury.损伤严重度评分在颅脑损伤中的应用。
Injury. 1995 Jul;26(6):399-400. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(95)00064-g.
2
Early management of severe head injury in Northern Ireland.北爱尔兰严重颅脑损伤的早期管理
Injury. 1995 Jul;26(6):395-7. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(95)00003-r.
3
Usefulness of the abbreviated injury score and the injury severity score in comparison to the Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury.与格拉斯哥昏迷量表相比,简明损伤评分和损伤严重程度评分在预测创伤性脑损伤后结局方面的效用。
J Trauma. 2007 Apr;62(4):946-50. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000229796.14717.3a.
4
Utilizing ultra-early continuous physiologic data to develop automated measures of clinical severity in a traumatic brain injury population.利用超早期连续生理数据为创伤性脑损伤患者开发临床严重程度的自动化评估指标。
Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 31;14(1):7618. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57538-5.
5
Evaluation of gunshot wounds in the emergency department.急诊科枪伤评估
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015 Jul;21(4):248-55. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2015.64495.
6
Predictors of outcome in civilians with gunshot wounds to the head upon presentation.头部枪伤平民就诊时的预后预测因素。
J Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;121(3):645-52. doi: 10.3171/2014.5.JNS131872. Epub 2014 Jul 4.
7
Impact of Glasgow Coma Scale score and pupil parameters on mortality rate and outcome in pediatric and adult severe traumatic brain injury: a retrospective, multicenter cohort study.格拉斯哥昏迷评分和瞳孔参数对儿童和成人严重创伤性脑损伤患者死亡率和预后的影响:一项回顾性、多中心队列研究。
J Neurosurg. 2017 Mar;126(3):760-767. doi: 10.3171/2016.1.JNS152385. Epub 2016 Apr 1.
8
Effect measure modification and confounding of severe head injury mortality by age and multiple organ injury severity.年龄和多器官损伤严重程度对重型颅脑损伤死亡率的效应测量修正及混杂作用
Ann Epidemiol. 2007 Feb;17(2):142-7. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.08.004.
9
Predictive value of scoring system in severe pediatric head injury.评分系统在小儿重度颅脑损伤中的预测价值。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2007;43(11):861-9.
10
The predictive value of field versus arrival Glasgow Coma Scale score and TRISS calculations in moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury.现场与入院时格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分及创伤和损伤严重度评分计算在中重度创伤性脑损伤中的预测价值。
J Trauma. 2006 May;60(5):985-90. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000205860.96209.1c.

引用本文的文献

1
Trajectories of interleukin 10 and heart fatty acid-binding protein levels in traumatic brain injury patients with or without extracranial injuries.有或无颅外损伤的创伤性脑损伤患者白细胞介素10和心脏脂肪酸结合蛋白水平的变化轨迹
Front Neurol. 2023 Apr 4;14:1133764. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1133764. eCollection 2023.
2
Effect of Pre-Hospital Intubation in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury on Outcome: A Prospective Cohort Study.院前气管插管对重型颅脑损伤患者预后的影响:一项前瞻性队列研究。
J Clin Med. 2019 Apr 6;8(4):470. doi: 10.3390/jcm8040470.
3
Mortality and Prehospital Blood Pressure in Patients With Major Traumatic Brain Injury: Implications for the Hypotension Threshold.
重度创伤性脑损伤患者的死亡率与院前血压:对低血压阈值的启示
JAMA Surg. 2017 Apr 1;152(4):360-368. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4686.
4
Combining the new injury severity score with an anatomical polytrauma injury variable predicts mortality better than the new injury severity score and the injury severity score: a retrospective cohort study.将新损伤严重程度评分与解剖学多发伤损伤变量相结合,比新损伤严重程度评分和损伤严重程度评分能更好地预测死亡率:一项回顾性队列研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Mar 8;24:25. doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0215-6.
5
Impact of whole-body computed tomography on mortality and surgical management of severe blunt trauma.全身计算机断层扫描对严重钝性创伤死亡率及手术治疗的影响
Crit Care. 2012 Jun 11;16(3):R101. doi: 10.1186/cc11375.
6
Out-of-hospital hypertonic resuscitation following severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial.院外高渗复苏治疗严重创伤性脑损伤:一项随机对照试验。
JAMA. 2010 Oct 6;304(13):1455-64. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1405.
7
Relationship between the Arg72Pro polymorphism of p53 and outcome for patients with traumatic brain injury.p53基因Arg72Pro多态性与创伤性脑损伤患者预后的关系。
Intensive Care Med. 2005 Sep;31(9):1168-73. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2715-0. Epub 2005 Jul 9.