Tıp Fakültesi / Faculty of Medicine

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/1403

Browse

Filters

2015 - 201912020 - 20221

Settings

search.filters.applied.f.rights: search.filters.rights.info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessSubject: search.filters.subject.Trauma

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Assessment of Traumatic Deaths in A Level One Trauma Center in Ankara, Turkey
    (2015) Arslan, E. D.; Kaya, E.; Sonmez, M.; Kavalci, C.; Solakoglu, A.; Yilmaz, F.; Durdu, T.; Karakilic, E.; 0000-0003-2529-2946; 26037980; AGG-1308-2022
    Trauma management shows significant progress in last decades. Determining the time and place of deaths indicate where to focus to improve our knowledge about trauma. We conducted this retrospective study from data of trauma victims who were brought to a major tertiary hospital which is a level one trauma center in Ankara, Turkey, and died even if during transport or in the hospital between 1 March 2010 and 1 March 2013. The patients' demographic characteristics, trauma mechanisms, time frames and causes of deaths determined by physicians were recorded. Traumas were grouped as "high energy trauma" (HET) and "low energy trauma" (LET). Falls from ground level were defined as LET. 209 traumatic deaths due to trauma or trauma-related conditions were found in the study period. 161 of 209 (78 %) patients suffered from HET. Motor vehicle collisions (MVC) (56 %) were the most common mechanism of trauma followed by burns (16 %), falls (11 %), gunshots (9 %) and stabs (6 %) in this group and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) (41 %) were the most common cause of death followed by circulatory collapse (22 %) and multi-organ failure (20 %). 36 % of deaths occurred before arrival at hospital, 25 % in the first 24 h of admission, 18 % between 2nd and 7th day and 21 % after first week. Trimodal distribution of traumatic deaths was not valid for all types of injuries and the most important factor to decrease traumatic deaths is still prevention. Also we have to keep on searching to improve our knowledge about trauma management.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    A Comparison of 2 Surgical Treatments for Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Temporary Osteosynthesis and Arthrodesis
    (2022) Ibrahim Suner, Halil; Luque Perez, Rafael; Garriguez-Perez, Daniel; Echevarria Marin, Marta; Luis Perez, Jose; Dominguez, Ignacio
    BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes and complications of patients treated for thoracolumbar burst fractures via temporary percutaneous osteosynthesis or open definitive arthrodesis. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed including patients treated between 2017 and 2019 for a burst fracture of the thoracolumbar junction, either with percutaneous osteosynthesis (case group) or open arthrodesis (control group). Clinical, functional, and radiographic results were analyzed and compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: We included 112 patients (56 osteosynthesis/ 56 arthrodesis, P = 1) in our study. The mean follow-up and mean age were 20 +/- 3 months (20 +/- 2/20 +/- 3, P = 1), and 41 +/- 10 years (40 +/- 11/42 +/- 10, P = 0.3), respectively. Fracture level was L1/L2 in 75% and T11/T12 in 25% of patients. The osteosynthesis group showed significantly shorter operative times (104 +/- 20 minutes/ 176 +/- 18 minutes, P < 0.01) and inpatient stays (11.6 +/- 1.5 days/15.6 +/- 3.8 days, P < 0.01). Both groups showed similar correction over kyphosis angle at final follow-up (5.8 degrees +/- 2.8 degrees/6 degrees +/- 0.2 degrees P = 0.57), but the osteosynthesis group showed increased segment mobility after hardware removal (3.8 degrees +/- 1.2 degrees/0.9 degrees +/- 0.3 degrees , P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in complications, although the osteosynthesis group showed a significantly lower need for blood transfusion (21%/43%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of treatment yielded good clinical and radiological results with similar complication rates. Temporary osteosynthesis seems to be more beneficial than open arthrodesis because it requires shorter operative time and hospitalization, causes less bleeding, and facilitates spinal movement.