Injury Severity Score

BackgroundIn the last decades a lot of new reconstructive techniques were developed for the treatment of mangled lower extremity. However failed attempt to limb salvage is related to high risk of mortality for the patient. Several scores were developed to establish guidelines for the decision to amputate or not, however in literature there is no consensus about the reliability of this scores.MethodsThe authors focused their attention on the most used score system to provide guidance of the management of a mangled lower limb. The search term used included mangled lower extremity, MESS, PSI, LSI and NISSSA. The inclusion criteria were: studies dealing with mangled lower extremity; articles reporting MESS, PSI, LSI or NISSSA scores; articles published in English in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and web of science in the last 30 years, minimum number of cases in study of 15, minimum follow up of 1 year.ResultsAccording with the criteria described above, we found 134 articles in PubMed, 165 articles in Scopus, 111 articles in the Cochrane Library and 108 articles in Web of Science. The most used score in literature is the MESS. Few results are shown using the other severity scores. There are a lot of controversies in literature about the use of this scale. MESS seems to be more accurate than the LSI in prediction of limb salvage. LSI score shows better results when applied to type III tibial fractures. High sentivity of the PSI score is described when applied to predict successful limb salvage. Low sensitivity and specificity are described for the NISSSA score. The literature is very poor of articles related to mangled lower extremity in children. Higher sensitivity and specificity are described for these scores in children when compared to adult population.ConclusionThe mangled lower extremity treatment is a challenge for the surgeon. Many scores were developed to help the surgeon, however they cannot be used as the sole criterion by which amputation decision are made and, in case of succesful limb salvage, they are not predictive of the functional recovery. Moreover, undue enthusiasm for new surgical techniques can lead to increased morbidity and mortality in case of secondary amputation.

BackgroundDescription of the anatomical severity of injuries in trauma patients is important. While the Injury Severity Score has been regarded as the "gold standard" since its creation, several studies have indicated that the New Injury Severity Score is better. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the accuracy of the Injury Severity Score and the New Injury Severity Score in predicting mortality.MethodsTwo researchers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases and included studies from which the exact number of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results could be extracted. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Meta-DiSc. Meta-regression, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the source(s) of heterogeneity and factor(s) affecting the accuracy of the New Injury Severity Score and the Injury Severity Score in predicting mortality.ResultsThe heterogeneity of the 11 relevant studies (total n = 11,866) was high (I² > 80%). The meta-analysis using a random-effects model resulted in sensitivity of 0.64, specificity of 0.93, positive likelihood ratio of 5.11, negative likelihood ratio of 0.27, diagnostic odds ratio of 27.75, and area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.9009 for the Injury Severity Score; and sensitivity of 0.71, specificity of 0.87, positive likelihood ratio of 5.22, negative likelihood ratio of 0.20, diagnostic odds ratio of 24.74, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.9095 for the New Injury Severity Score.ConclusionThe New Injury Severity Score and the Injury Severity Score have similar abilities in predicting mortality. Further research is required to determine the appropriate use of the Injury Severity Score or the New Injury Severity Score based on specific patient condition and trauma type.

IntroductionFibrinogen plays a key role in hemostasis and is the first coagulation factor to reach critical levels in massively bleeding trauma patients. Consequently, rapid estimation of plasma fibrinogen (FIB) is essential upon emergency room (ER) admission, but is not part of routine coagulation monitoring in many centers. We investigated the predictive ability of the laboratory parameters hemoglobin (Hb) and base excess (BE) upon admission, as well as the Injury Severity Score (ISS), to estimate FIB in major trauma patients.MethodsIn this retrospective study, major trauma patients (ISS ≥16) with documented FIB analysis upon ER admission were eligible for inclusion. FIB was correlated with Hb, BE and ISS, alone and in combination, using regression analysis.ResultsA total of 675 patients were enrolled (median ISS 27). FIB upon admission correlated strongly with Hb, BE and ISS. Multiple regression analysis showed that Hb and BE together predicted FIB (adjusted R2 = 0.46; loge(FIB) = 3.567 + 0.223.Hb - 0.007.Hb2 + 0.044.BE), and predictive strength increased when ISS was included (adjusted R2 = 0.51; loge(FIB) = 4.188 + 0.243.Hb - 0.008.Hb2 + 0.036.BE - 0.031.ISS + 0.0003.ISS2). Of all major trauma patients admitted with Hb ConclusionsUpon ER admission, FIB of major trauma patients shows strong correlation with rapidly obtainable, routine laboratory parameters such as Hb and BE. These two parameters might provide an insightful and rapid tool to identify major trauma patients at risk of acquired hypofibrinogenemia. Early calculation of ISS could further increase the ability to predict FIB in these patients. We propose that FIB can be estimated during the initial phase of trauma care based on bedside tests.

BackgroundReliable mortality prediction is central to trauma research, quality assessment, and resource allocation. While the French national hospital discharge database (PMSI) provides comprehensive nationwide data, it does not capture clinical parameters required for established severity scores such as TRISS, which is used for predicting in-hospital survival after trauma and necessary for implementing national-level evaluations of health system performance. This study tested whether TRISS could nonetheless be accurately derived from PMSI data.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of adult patients admitted for severe trauma to an academic trauma center between 2012 and 2023. Clinical data from medical records were linked with corresponding PMSI records. Surrogate predictors of TRISS were derived from PMSI codes. An extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model was used, model performance was assessed using bootstrap validation and interpretability was explored through SHapley Additive exPlanations analyses.ResultsA total of 2,523 trauma patients were successfully matched between PMSI and medical records. Median age was 35 years, 79% were male, and in-hospital mortality was 15%. Correlation between Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) in PMSI and medical records was strong (ρ = 0.88), while concordance for shock and coma was weak (κ ≈ 0.25). The XGBoost model using individual PMSI codes achieved the best performance (optimism-adjusted R2 = 0.72). SAPS II was the main contributor, with additional contributions from shock, coma, and anatomical injury codes.ConclusionTRISS can be reliably approximated from PMSI data using an XGBoost model. This approach enables patient-specific assessment of trauma severity and mortality risk from PMSI, opening perspectives for nationwide surveillance and quality evaluation of trauma care in France.