Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2014 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2014 Open Access

Journal of Trauma Management & Outcomes 1/2014

Compartmental anatomical classification of traumatic abdominal injuries from the academic point of view and its potential clinical implication

Zeitschrift:
Journal of Trauma Management & Outcomes > Ausgabe 1/2014
Autoren:
Ayman El-Menyar, Husham Abdelrahman, Hassan Al-Thani, Ahmad Zarour, Ashok Parchani, Ruben Peralta, Rifat Latifi
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1752-2897-8-14) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

AE carried out study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. HAR carried out data collection and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. HA carried out data collection, and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. AZ carried out data collection, and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. AP carried out data collection and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. RP carried out data collection, and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. RL carried out data analysis, and interpretation and drafted the manuscript. “All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

The mechanism and outcome of traumatic abdominal injury (TAI) varies worldwide. Moreover, data comparing TAIs in each abdominal compartment are lacking. We aimed to assess from the academic point of view, TAI based on its anatomical compartments.

Patients & methods

We conducted a retrospective study for TAI patients between 2008 and 2011 in Qatar. Patients were categorized according to the involved anatomical compartment (C): intrathoracic (ITC), retroperitoneal (RPC), true abdomen (TAC), and pelvic abdomen (PAC) group. Chi Square test, One-Way ANOVA and multivariate regression analysis were appropriately performed.

Results

Of 6,888 patients admitted to the trauma unit, 1,036 (15%) had TAI that were grouped as ITC (65%), RPC (15%), TAC (13%), and PAC (7%). The mean age was lowest in ITC (29 ± 13) and highest in TAC (34 ± 11) group, (P = 0.001). Motor vehicle crash was the main mechanism of injury in all groups except for PAC, in which fall dominated. Vast majority of expatriates had PAC and TAC injuries. The main abdominal injuries included liver (35%; ITC), spleen (32%; ITC) and kidneys (18%; RPC). Extra-abdominal injuries involved the head in RPC and ITC, lung in ITC and RPC and extremities in PAC. Mean ISS was higher in RPC and ITC. Abdominal AIS was higher in TAC injuries. Overall hospital mortality was 10%: RPC (15%), TAC (11%), ITC (9.4%) and PAC (1.5%). Concurrent traumatic brain injury (OR 5.3; P = 0.001) and need for blood transfusion (OR 3.03; P = 0.003) were the main independent predictors of mortality.

Conclusion

In addition to its academic value, the anatomical approach of TAI would be a complementary tool for better understanding and prediction of the pattern and outcome of TAI. This would be possible if further research find accurate, early diagnostic tool for this anatomical classification.
Zusatzmaterial
Authors’ original file for figure 1
13032_2014_91_MOESM1_ESM.tiff
Authors’ original file for figure 2
13032_2014_91_MOESM2_ESM.tiff
Authors’ original file for figure 3
13032_2014_91_MOESM3_ESM.tiff
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Journal of Trauma Management & Outcomes 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe