Library

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    ISSN: 1432-1238
    Keywords: Key words Severe trauma ; Computed tomography ; Cost minimization study ; Abdominal injury ; Chest trauma ; Trauma evaluation ; Trauma costs
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Objective: To compare contrast computed tomography (CT) for evaluating abdominal and vascular chest injuries after emergency room resuscitation with multidisciplinary management based on bedside procedure (BP), e.g., peritoneal lavage, abdomen ultrasonography urography and, if indicated, CT and/or aortography or transesophageal echocardiography. Design: Randomized study. Setting: Emergency, critical care and radiology departments in a trauma center. Patients: The study was performed in 103 severe blunt trauma patients with a revised trauma index 〈8, admitted over a 16 month period and divided into group 1 (G1, n=52, CT management) and group 2 (G2, n=51, BP management). Interventions: A relative direct cost scale used in our trauma center was applied, and cost units (U) were assigned to each diagnostic test for cost-minimization analysis (abdomen ultrasonograph=7.5 U, peritoneal lavage=8 U, urography=9 U, computed tomography=9 U, transesophageal echocardiography=13.5 U, and aortography=15 U). One unit is approximately equivalent to $ 43.7. Results: Injury severity score (ISS) was 31.7±15.4 in G1 and 33.8±18.3 in G2. Sensitivity for CT was 90.4% (G1) vs 72.5% for BP (G2) in abdomen (P〈0.01) and 60% in chest for evaluating mediastinal hematoma etiology (G1). As Table 2 shows, G1 needed 59 tests for evaluating injuries (1.1±0.3 tests patient) while G2 required 81 tests (1.68±0.8 tests/patient) (P〈0.01). The total relative cost was 538 U for G1, 7.04±2.2 U cost/injury and 10.3±3.3 U/evaluation of trauma vs 698 U for G2, 9.84±5.03 U cost/injury and 13.68±8.5 U/evaluation (P〈0.05). Conclusions: This cost-minimization study suggests that CT is a more cost-effective method for the post-emergency room resuscitation evaluation of severe abdominal blunt trauma than the multidisciplinary BP. Chest CT is a screening method for mediastinal hematoma but not for etiology.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    ISSN: 1432-1238
    Keywords: Severe trauma ; Computed tomography ; Cost minimization study ; Abdominal injury ; Chest trauma ; Trauma evaluation ; Trauma costs
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Objective To compare contrast computed tomography (CT) for evaluating abdominal and vascular chest injuries after emergency room resuscitation with multidisciplinary management based on bedside procedure (BP), e.g., peritoneal lavage, abdomen ultrasonography urography and, if indicated, CT and/or aortography or transesophageal echocardiography. Design Randomized study.Setting: Emergency, critical care and radiology departments in a trauma center. Patients The study was performed in 103 severe blunt trauma patients with a revised trauma index〈8, admitted over a 16 month period and divided into group 1 (G 1,n=52, CT management) and group 2 (G 2,n=51, BP management). Interventions A relative direct cost scale used in our trauma center was applied, and cost units (U) were assigned to each diagnostic test for cost-minimization analysis (abdomen ultrasonograph=7.5 U, peritoneal lavage=8 U, urography=9 U, computed tomography=9 U, transesophageal echocardiography=13.5 U, and aortography=15 U). One unit is approximately equivalent to $ 43.7. Results Injury severity score (ISS) was 31.7±15.4 in G1 and 33.8±18.3 in G2. Sensitivity for CT was 90.4% (G1) vs 72.5% for BP (G2) in abdomen (P〈0.01) and 60% in chest for evaluating mediastinal hematoma etiology (G1). As Table 2 shows, G1 needed 59 tests for evaluating injuries (1.1±0.3 tests patient) while G2 required 81 tests (1.68±0.8 tests/patient) (P〈0.01). The total relative cost was 538 U for G1, 7.04±2.2 U cost/injury and 10.3±3.3 U/evaluation of trauma vs 698 U for G2, 9.84±5.03 U cost/injury and 13.68±8.5 U/evaluation (P〈0.05). Conclusions This cost-minimization study suggests that CT is a more cost-effective method for the post-emergency room resuscitation evaluation of severe abdominal blunt trauma than the multidisciplinary BP. Chest CT is a screening method for mediastinal hematoma but not for etiology.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...