Citation

Mun S. Ulus. Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2015; 21(6): 432-439.

Affiliation

Department of Surgery, Chosun University, Gwangju, South Korea. spmun@chosun.ac.kr.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dernegi)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

27054632

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic stability (HS) based on vital sign (VS) is thought to be the most useful criteria for successful non-operative management (NOM) of blunt spleen injury (BSI). However, a consistent definition of HS has not been established. We wanted to evaluate the definition of HS through conducting a nationwide survey and find the factors affectting diversity.

METHODS: The questionnaire regarding the definition of HS was sent to the department of trauma surgery and emergency medicine of level I trauma center between October 2012 and November 2012. Data was compared using analysis of variance, t-test, χ2 test and logistic regression.

RESULTS: Among five hundred and sixty-three doctors, 507 responded (90%). Forty-eight responses were incomplete, and hence, 459 (81.5%) responses were analyzed. There was a significant diversity in the definition of HS on the subject of type of blood pressure (BP), cut off value of hypotension, measuring technique of BP, duration of hypotension, whether or not using heart rate (HR) as a determinant of HS, cut off value of hypotension when the patient has comorbidity or when the patient is a pediatric patient. 91.5% replied that they were confused defining HS and felt the need to have more objective determinants. Nevertheless, 90% of the responders were not using laboratory test to define HS.

CONCLUSION: Many trauma doctors are using only VS to define HS. This is why there is a confusion regarding how to define which patient is hemodynamically stable. More objective determinants such as base deficit or lactate can be useful adjuncts.

Language: en