ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Penetrating thoracic stab wounds and the cardiac box: a single-center experience of in-hospital treatment and outcome in Germany.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracic stab injuries (TSI) are rare but potentially life-threatening emergencies. In Germany, their incidence in emergency departments remains low. The cardiac box (CB) concept has been proposed to identify cardiac involvement in penetrating thoracic trauma, although its clinical relevance remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the in-hospital management of TSI and to assess the predictive value of the cardiac box for major intrathoracic injuries.
methodsA retrospective and exploratory analysis was conducted of all patients with TSI resulting from assault or self-harm who were admitted to a certified Level 1 trauma centre between January 2020 and June 2024. Prehospital and in-hospital variables were descriptively analysed.
resultsFifty-six male patients were included (median age 28.5 years). Sixteen patients sustained injuries within the cardiac box (CB), and thirty-nine outside this area (NCB). All CB patients (100%) and 95% of NCB patients were admitted via the emergency department. The annual proportion of thoracic stab injuries among all emergency presentations ranged from 1.4% to 2.4%. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was significantly higher in the CB group (9.5 vs 3; p = 0.045), whereas the distribution of intrathoracic injury types and initial haemodynamic parameters (MAP CB: 93 mmHg vs NCB: 97 mmHg; p = 0.925) did not differ significantly. Two patients in the CB group had a cardiac and/or great vessel injury. Two NCB patients received prehospital chest tubes. In the emergency department, chest tubes were placed in 23.2% of patients, with no significant group difference. Median intrahospital transfer time to the target department was shorter in CB patients (38 vs 67 min). Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was performed in eight patients (CB: 25%; NCB: 10.3%; p = 0.241), and one open procedure was undertaken in each group. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ II) occurred more frequently among CB patients (50.1% vs 25.7%; p = 0.018). The overall mortality rate was 3.6% (two CB patients).
conclusionsTSI are rare but serious injuries requiring structured, multidisciplinary in-hospital management. Minimally invasive approaches are feasible in haemodynamically stable patients. The low rate of prehospital chest tube placement warrants further evaluation. The cardiac box concept appears overly simplistic, as clinically significant injuries may also occur outside this anatomical region.
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.