成人孤立性中面部骨折在1级创伤中心治疗是否有更好的预后?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Lang Liang, Tim T Wang, Nicholas Wilken, Gary Warburton, John Caccamese, Cameron Lee
{"title":"成人孤立性中面部骨折在1级创伤中心治疗是否有更好的预后?","authors":"Lang Liang, Tim T Wang, Nicholas Wilken, Gary Warburton, John Caccamese, Cameron Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.joms.2025.06.202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment at a level 1 trauma center is associated with better outcomes for a multitude of traumatic injuries. Yet, the relationship between trauma center designation and treatment outcomes in the context of midface trauma remains poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between trauma center designation and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing an operative intervention for isolated midface trauma.</p><p><strong>Study design, setting, sample: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank 2018 to 2022. Adults with isolated midface trauma who underwent an operative intervention were included. Patients with polytrauma or missing data were excluded.</p><p><strong>Predictor variable: </strong>The primary predictor variable was trauma center designation (level 1 or non-level 1).</p><p><strong>Main outcome variable: </strong>The primary outcome variable was any complication (yes or no). The secondary outcomes were return to the operating room, length of stay, adverse discharge disposition, and days to operation.</p><p><strong>Covariates: </strong>Covariates were categorized as demographic (age, sex, payer), medical and injury-related (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, fracture count), and hospital-related (teaching status, bed size).</p><p><strong>Analyses: </strong>Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable regression statistics were calculated to measure the association between trauma center designation and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 62,437 subjects with isolated midface trauma, 8,321 (13.3%) underwent an operative intervention. There were no significant differences between operation rate between level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.08). The operative cohort had a mean age of 44.8 ± 18.5 years, and 5,941 were male (71.4%). The complication rates at level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers were 1.1% (58) and 1.0% (33) respectively, and this difference was not significant (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.67, P = .8). After adjusting for study covariates, trauma center designation was not independently associated with complications, hospital length of stay, return to the operating room, adverse discharge disposition, or days to operation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Trauma center designation was not independently associated with clinical outcomes. Further studies are necessary to determine which patients would benefit most from treatment at a level 1 trauma center.</p>","PeriodicalId":16612,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Treatment at a Level 1 Trauma Center Associated With Better Outcomes in Adults With Isolated Midface Fractures?\",\"authors\":\"Lang Liang, Tim T Wang, Nicholas Wilken, Gary Warburton, John Caccamese, Cameron Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joms.2025.06.202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment at a level 1 trauma center is associated with better outcomes for a multitude of traumatic injuries. Yet, the relationship between trauma center designation and treatment outcomes in the context of midface trauma remains poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between trauma center designation and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing an operative intervention for isolated midface trauma.</p><p><strong>Study design, setting, sample: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank 2018 to 2022. Adults with isolated midface trauma who underwent an operative intervention were included. Patients with polytrauma or missing data were excluded.</p><p><strong>Predictor variable: </strong>The primary predictor variable was trauma center designation (level 1 or non-level 1).</p><p><strong>Main outcome variable: </strong>The primary outcome variable was any complication (yes or no). The secondary outcomes were return to the operating room, length of stay, adverse discharge disposition, and days to operation.</p><p><strong>Covariates: </strong>Covariates were categorized as demographic (age, sex, payer), medical and injury-related (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, fracture count), and hospital-related (teaching status, bed size).</p><p><strong>Analyses: </strong>Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable regression statistics were calculated to measure the association between trauma center designation and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 62,437 subjects with isolated midface trauma, 8,321 (13.3%) underwent an operative intervention. There were no significant differences between operation rate between level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.08). The operative cohort had a mean age of 44.8 ± 18.5 years, and 5,941 were male (71.4%). The complication rates at level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers were 1.1% (58) and 1.0% (33) respectively, and this difference was not significant (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.67, P = .8). After adjusting for study covariates, trauma center designation was not independently associated with complications, hospital length of stay, return to the operating room, adverse discharge disposition, or days to operation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Trauma center designation was not independently associated with clinical outcomes. Further studies are necessary to determine which patients would benefit most from treatment at a level 1 trauma center.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.06.202\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.06.202","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:1级创伤中心的治疗与多种创伤性损伤的较好预后相关。然而,在中面部创伤的背景下,创伤中心的指定和治疗结果之间的关系仍然知之甚少。目的:本研究的目的是评估创伤中心的指定与孤立性面中创伤患者接受手术干预的临床结果之间的关系。研究设计、环境、样本:这是一项回顾性队列研究,使用美国外科医师学会国家创伤数据库2018年至2022年。接受手术干预的孤立性中脸创伤成人纳入研究。排除多发创伤或资料缺失的患者。预测变量:主要预测变量为创伤中心指定(1级或非1级)。主要结局变量:主要结局变量是任何并发症(是或否)。次要结果为返回手术室、住院时间、不良出院处置和手术天数。协变量:协变量分为人口统计学(年龄、性别、付款人)、医疗和伤害相关(Elixhauser合并症指数、骨折计数)和医院相关(教学状况、床位大小)。分析:计算描述性、双变量和多变量回归统计来衡量创伤中心指定与结果之间的关系。结果:在62437例孤立性中脸外伤患者中,有8321例(13.3%)接受了手术干预。一级创伤中心与非一级创伤中心的手术率差异无统计学意义(优势比为1.01;95% CI, 0.95 ~ 1.08)。手术队列平均年龄44.8±18.5岁,男性5941例(71.4%)。1级和非1级创伤中心的并发症发生率分别为1.1%(58例)和1.0%(33例),差异无统计学意义(相对危险度1.08;95% CI, 0.71 ~ 1.67, P = 0.8)。在调整研究协变量后,创伤中心的指定与并发症、住院时间、返回手术室、不良出院处置或手术天数没有独立的关系。结论和相关性:创伤中心的指定与临床结果没有独立的相关性。需要进一步的研究来确定哪些患者会从一级创伤中心的治疗中获益最多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Treatment at a Level 1 Trauma Center Associated With Better Outcomes in Adults With Isolated Midface Fractures?

Background: Treatment at a level 1 trauma center is associated with better outcomes for a multitude of traumatic injuries. Yet, the relationship between trauma center designation and treatment outcomes in the context of midface trauma remains poorly understood.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between trauma center designation and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing an operative intervention for isolated midface trauma.

Study design, setting, sample: This was a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank 2018 to 2022. Adults with isolated midface trauma who underwent an operative intervention were included. Patients with polytrauma or missing data were excluded.

Predictor variable: The primary predictor variable was trauma center designation (level 1 or non-level 1).

Main outcome variable: The primary outcome variable was any complication (yes or no). The secondary outcomes were return to the operating room, length of stay, adverse discharge disposition, and days to operation.

Covariates: Covariates were categorized as demographic (age, sex, payer), medical and injury-related (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, fracture count), and hospital-related (teaching status, bed size).

Analyses: Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable regression statistics were calculated to measure the association between trauma center designation and outcomes.

Results: Of the 62,437 subjects with isolated midface trauma, 8,321 (13.3%) underwent an operative intervention. There were no significant differences between operation rate between level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.08). The operative cohort had a mean age of 44.8 ± 18.5 years, and 5,941 were male (71.4%). The complication rates at level 1 and non-level 1 trauma centers were 1.1% (58) and 1.0% (33) respectively, and this difference was not significant (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.67, P = .8). After adjusting for study covariates, trauma center designation was not independently associated with complications, hospital length of stay, return to the operating room, adverse discharge disposition, or days to operation.

Conclusion and relevance: Trauma center designation was not independently associated with clinical outcomes. Further studies are necessary to determine which patients would benefit most from treatment at a level 1 trauma center.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: This monthly journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Practice-applicable articles help develop the methods used to handle dentoalveolar surgery, facial injuries and deformities, TMJ disorders, oral cancer, jaw reconstruction, anesthesia and analgesia. The journal also includes specifics on new instruments and diagnostic equipment and modern therapeutic drugs and devices. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is recommended for first or priority subscription by the Dental Section of the Medical Library Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信