• Thomas Gross, Philipp Braken, and Felix Amsler.
• Department of Traumatology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstr.1, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland. thomas.gross@ksa.ch.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Apr 1; 46 (2): 397-406.

PurposeAccording to the American College of Surgeons (ACS) recommendations, the benchmark for trauma center need (TCN) is an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. In contrast, Swiss highly specialized medicine (HSM) regulations set out TCN for all patients with an ISS > 19 or an Abbreviated Injury Severity (AIS) of the head ≥ 3. This investigation assessed to what extent the modification might be justified.MethodsConsecutive analysis of all significantly injured (new ISS, NISS ≥ 8) adults treated in a trauma center from 2010 to 2016 based on their ISS and AIS head and in respect to utilized resources and outcome.ResultsOf 2171 patients (mean age 57.2 ± 21.6; ISS 15.0 ± 8.5) 40.1% fulfilled the ACS and 52.7% the HSM-definition of TCN. Comparative analysis of specified subgroups representing combinations of the ISS and the AIS head revealed that patients within the HSM but not within the ACS-definition of TCN achieved worse outcomes in mortality or on the Glasgow Outcome Score and had a higher inpatient rehabilitation rate than patients with an ISS < 15 and an AIS head < 3 compared to patients with an ISS > 15. Mortality for patients with an ISS 16-19 and AIS head < 3 (qualifying for the ACS but not the HSM-definition of TCN) was found to be twice as high for patients who were not in the ACS or the HSM group (ISS < 16 & AIS head < 3).ConclusionsIf confirmed by others, both the ACS and the Swiss-recommendations for TCN should be adapted accordingly, provided that the resultant increased workload is feasible for the trauma centers concerned.

30 keywords...

hide…