• Mehmet Eryilmaz, Murat Durusu, Gürol Cantürk, M Oner Menteş, M Tahir Ozer, Erdem Cevik, Nurkan Törer, Ali Avci, and Umit Kaldirim.
• Department of Emergency Medicine Gülhane Military Medical Academy School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. mehmeteryilmaz@hotmail.com
• Ulus Travma Acil Cer. 2009 May 1;15(3):285-92.

BackgroundThe Turkish Penalty Law has recently been changed. The novel law asks the practitioner to report if there is any 'Situation Placing a Life in Danger '. Herein, we evaluate the anatomic (ISS, TRISS) and physiologic (RTS) trauma scores assessing mortality.MethodsStudy data were obtained from a retrospective chart screening of cases who were accepted to the emergency department in GATA Faculty of Medicine in 2007 and from archived forensic reports. Demographic features and the time period of admittance were recorded. Trauma scores were calculated. All parameters were evaluated with the reported condition of "life threat" and mortality.ResultsForensic reports were completed for 373 patients and 6.16% of them were noted as being in a life-threatening condition. Mortality rate was 1.34%. A significant rate of trauma patients suffered from firearm injury and stab wounds (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference between ISS, TRISS and RTS with respect to predictive value of a 'life-threatening condition' (Area under curve [AUC] in the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve analysis: ISS: 0.968, TRISS: 0.922, RTS: 0.196). There was also no statistical difference between ISS, TRISS and RTS scores regarding mortality prediction (AUC in the ROC analysis: ISS: 0.992, TRISS: 0.0995, RTS: 0.005).ConclusionWe assume that there is no difference between physiologic and anatomic scoring systems to predict mortality for deciding a life-threatening condition.

27 keywords...

hide…