Bibliothek

feed icon rss

Ihre E-Mail wurde erfolgreich gesendet. Bitte prüfen Sie Ihren Maileingang.

Leider ist ein Fehler beim E-Mail-Versand aufgetreten. Bitte versuchen Sie es erneut.

Vorgang fortführen?

Exportieren
Filter
  • Chest trauma  (2)
  • Computed tomography  (2)
  • 1
    ISSN: 1432-1238
    Schlagwort(e): Key words Severe trauma ; Computed tomography ; Cost minimization study ; Abdominal injury ; Chest trauma ; Trauma evaluation ; Trauma costs
    Quelle: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Thema: Medizin
    Notizen: 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.
    Materialart: Digitale Medien
    Bibliothek Standort Signatur Band/Heft/Jahr Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 2
    ISSN: 1432-1238
    Schlagwort(e): Severe trauma ; Computed tomography ; Cost minimization study ; Abdominal injury ; Chest trauma ; Trauma evaluation ; Trauma costs
    Quelle: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Thema: Medizin
    Notizen: 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.
    Materialart: Digitale Medien
    Bibliothek Standort Signatur Band/Heft/Jahr Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
Schließen ⊗
Diese Webseite nutzt Cookies und das Analyse-Tool Matomo. Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier...