• Arnold J Suda, Kristine Baran, Suna Brunnemer, Manuela Köck, Udo Obertacke, and David Eschmann.
• Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, AUVA Trauma Center Salzburg, Academic Teaching Hospital of Paracelsus Medical University, Dr. Franz-Rehrl-Platz 5, 5010, Salzburg, Austria. arnold.suda@auva.at.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Jun 1; 48 (3): 2183-2188.

PurposeEmergency trauma room treatment follows established algorithms such as ATLS®. Nevertheless, there are injuries that are not immediately recognized here. The aim of this study was to evaluate the residual risk for manifesting life-threatening injuries despite strict adherence to trauma room guidelines, which is different to missed injuries that describe recognizable injuries.MethodsIn a retrospective study, we included 2694 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency trauma room of one single level I trauma center between 2016 and 2019. In accordance with the trauma room algorithm, primary and secondary survey, trauma whole-body CT scan, eFAST, and tertiary survey were performed. Patients who needed emergency surgery during their hospital stay for additional injury found after guidelines-oriented emergency trauma room treatment were analyzed.ResultsIn seven patients (0.26%; mean age 50.4 years, range 18-90; mean ISS 39.7, range 34-50), a life-threatening injury occurred in the further course: one epidural bleeding (13 h after tertiary survey) and six abdominal hollow organ injuries (range 5.5 h-4 days after tertiary survey). Two patients (0.07% overall) with abdominal injury died. The "number needed to fail" was 385 (95%-CI 0.0010-0.0053).ConclusionOur study reveals a remaining risk for delayed diagnosis of potentially lethal injuries despite accurate emergency trauma room algorithms. In other words, there were missed injuries that could have been identified using this algorithm but were missed due to other reasons. Continuous clinical and instrument-based examinations should, therefore, not be neglected after completion of the tertiary survey.Level Of EvidenceLevel II: Development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients (with universally applied reference "gold" standard).© 2021. The Author(s).

19 keywords...

hide…