Suppr超能文献

儿科急诊科头部损伤的评估:创伤前和创伤后系统

Evaluation of head injury in a pediatric emergency department: pretrauma and posttrauma system.

作者信息

Lavelle J M, Shaw K N

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 19104, USA.

出版信息

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998 Dec;152(12):1220-4. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.152.12.1220.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine if trauma center protocols affect the number of tests and consultations performed and the length of time spent in the emergency department or hospital.

DESIGN

A retrospective review and comparison of treatment for children with isolated head injury admitted to the emergency department before trauma center designation (group 1, 1985), and 5 years after implementation of trauma center protocols (group 2, 1991).

SETTING

Urban children's hospital, level I trauma center.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five children met the enrollment criteria in 1985 and 162 met the criteria in 1991. Falls were the predominant mechanism of injury (55%) for both years. For patients with moderate injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score, 9-12) or severe injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score, <9), there was no difference in radiographic or laboratory evaluation. For patients with minimal head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score, 15, no loss of consciousness, amnesia, seizure, focal neurologic findings, or persistent symptoms) and minor head injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score, >12, and loss of consciousness or amnesia), more radiologic and laboratory studies were done in 1991 that showed no clinically significant abnormalities. Patients with minimal head injury in group 2 were 14 times more likely to have cranial computed tomographic scans performed (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-67); 11 times more likely to have cervical spine radiographs (95% CI, 2.2-76.6); and 23 times more likely to have hepatic enzymes obtained (95% CI, 3-491). These differences persisted when analyzed by both the age of the patient and mechanism of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of trauma system protocols to isolated head injury patient evaluation results in increased use of laboratory and radiologic services. These practices have the potential to increase the cost of medical care without significantly improving outcome.

摘要

目的

确定创伤中心方案是否会影响所进行的检查和会诊数量,以及在急诊科或医院的停留时间。

设计

对创伤中心指定之前(1985年,第1组)和创伤中心方案实施5年后(1991年,第2组)入住急诊科的孤立性头部损伤儿童的治疗进行回顾性审查和比较。

地点

城市儿童医院,一级创伤中心。

结果

1985年有165名儿童符合纳入标准,1991年有162名符合标准。两年中,跌倒都是主要的致伤机制(55%)。对于中度损伤(格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分9 - 12分)或重度损伤(格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分<9分)的患者,影像学或实验室评估没有差异。对于轻度头部损伤(格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分15分,无意识丧失、失忆、癫痫发作、局灶性神经学表现或持续症状)和轻度头部损伤(格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分>12分,且有意识丧失或失忆)的患者,1991年进行了更多的影像学和实验室检查,但未发现临床显著异常。第2组中轻度头部损伤的患者进行头颅计算机断层扫描的可能性高14倍(95%置信区间[CI],3.4 - 67);进行颈椎X线检查的可能性高11倍(95% CI,2.2 - 76.6);进行肝酶检查的可能性高23倍(95% CI,3 - 491)。按患者年龄和致伤机制分析时,这些差异依然存在。

结论

将创伤系统方案应用于孤立性头部损伤患者评估会导致实验室和影像学检查服务的使用增加。这些做法有可能增加医疗成本,而不会显著改善治疗结果。

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