ArticleSurgery today2017
Impact of urgent resuscitative surgery for life-threatening torso trauma.
Article in Surgery today, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Survival benefits of interventional radiology and surgical teams collaboration during primary trauma surveys: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Effects of the establishment of trauma centres on the mortality rate among seriously injured patients: a propensity score matching retrospective study.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Management of Hemorrhagic Shock: Physiology Approach, Timing and Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- A case of severe hemorrhagic shock caused by traumatic avulsion of uterine fibroid.Trauma case reports · 2022Article
- The efficacy of a trauma call system: challenges in managing severe trauma at a rural emergency center without full-time emergency physicians.Acute medicine & surgery · 2019Article
- The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fifth edition.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the advantages of performing urgent resuscitative surgery (URS) in the emergency department (ED); namely, our URS policy, to avoid a delay in hemorrhage control for patients with severe torso trauma and unstable vital signs.
methodsWe divided 264 eligible cases into a URS group (n = 97) and a non-URS group (n = 167) to compare, retrospectively, the observed survival rate with the predicted survival using the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS).
resultsWhile the revised trauma score and the injury severity score were significantly lower in the URS group than in the non-URS group, the observed survival rate was significantly higher than the predicted rate in the URS (48.5 vs. 40.2%; p = 0.038). URS group patients with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg and a Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score of ≥9 had significantly higher observed survival rates than predicted survival rates (0.433 vs. 0.309, p = 0.008), (0.795 vs. 0.681, p = 0.004). The implementation of damage control surgery (DCS) was found to be a significant predictor of survival (OR 5.23, 95% CI 0.113-0.526, p < 0.010).
conclusionThe best indications for the URS policy are an SBP <90 mmHg, a GCS ≥9 on ED arrival, and/or the need for DCS. By implementing our URS policy, satisfactory survival of patients requiring immediate hemostatic surgery was achieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.