Progress in characterizing anatomic injury

Wayne S. Copes, Howard R. Champion, William J. Sacco, Mary M. Lawnick, Donald S. Gann, Thomas Gennarelli, Ellen J Mackenzie, Steven Schwaitzberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A three-valued description of anatomic injury is presented. Anatomic profile (AP) components A, B, and C summarize serious injuries (>AIS 2) to the head/brain or spinal cord; to the thorax or front of the neck; and all remaining serious injuries. Relationships between AP components and survival rate reaffirm the seriousness of head injury. Logistic function models relating AP components and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to survival probability were based on 20, 946 Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) patients (9.2% mortality rate) submitted through 1986. Model performance comparisons were based on 5, 939 MTOS patients (7.8% mortality rate) submitted during 1987. The AP better discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors and provided a 31% increase in sensitivity when compared with the ISS. Neither the ISS nor the AP alone reliably predict patient outcome. The predictive power of methods for estimating patient survival probability which include physiologic indices or profiles, patient age, and an anatomic profile should be compared with current methods. The AP, which is based on the severity and location of all serious injuries, provides a more rational basis for comparing patient samples than the ISS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1200-1207
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Volume30
Issue number10
StatePublished - 1990

Fingerprint

Injury Severity Score
Wounds and Injuries
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Survival
Mortality
Craniocerebral Trauma
Survivors
Spinal Cord
Neck
Thorax
Survival Rate
Logistic Models
Head
Brain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Copes, W. S., Champion, H. R., Sacco, W. J., Lawnick, M. M., Gann, D. S., Gennarelli, T., ... Schwaitzberg, S. (1990). Progress in characterizing anatomic injury. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 30(10), 1200-1207.

Progress in characterizing anatomic injury. / Copes, Wayne S.; Champion, Howard R.; Sacco, William J.; Lawnick, Mary M.; Gann, Donald S.; Gennarelli, Thomas; Mackenzie, Ellen J; Schwaitzberg, Steven.

In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1990, p. 1200-1207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Copes, WS, Champion, HR, Sacco, WJ, Lawnick, MM, Gann, DS, Gennarelli, T, Mackenzie, EJ & Schwaitzberg, S 1990, 'Progress in characterizing anatomic injury', Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1200-1207.
Copes WS, Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Gann DS, Gennarelli T et al. Progress in characterizing anatomic injury. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care. 1990;30(10):1200-1207.
Copes, Wayne S. ; Champion, Howard R. ; Sacco, William J. ; Lawnick, Mary M. ; Gann, Donald S. ; Gennarelli, Thomas ; Mackenzie, Ellen J ; Schwaitzberg, Steven. / Progress in characterizing anatomic injury. In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care. 1990 ; Vol. 30, No. 10. pp. 1200-1207.
@article{cb71a7b8b62849f499c691cf6bd0aac4,
title = "Progress in characterizing anatomic injury",
abstract = "A three-valued description of anatomic injury is presented. Anatomic profile (AP) components A, B, and C summarize serious injuries (>AIS 2) to the head/brain or spinal cord; to the thorax or front of the neck; and all remaining serious injuries. Relationships between AP components and survival rate reaffirm the seriousness of head injury. Logistic function models relating AP components and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to survival probability were based on 20, 946 Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) patients (9.2{\%} mortality rate) submitted through 1986. Model performance comparisons were based on 5, 939 MTOS patients (7.8{\%} mortality rate) submitted during 1987. The AP better discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors and provided a 31{\%} increase in sensitivity when compared with the ISS. Neither the ISS nor the AP alone reliably predict patient outcome. The predictive power of methods for estimating patient survival probability which include physiologic indices or profiles, patient age, and an anatomic profile should be compared with current methods. The AP, which is based on the severity and location of all serious injuries, provides a more rational basis for comparing patient samples than the ISS.",
author = "Copes, {Wayne S.} and Champion, {Howard R.} and Sacco, {William J.} and Lawnick, {Mary M.} and Gann, {Donald S.} and Thomas Gennarelli and Mackenzie, {Ellen J} and Steven Schwaitzberg",
year = "1990",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "1200--1207",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Progress in characterizing anatomic injury

AU - Copes, Wayne S.

AU - Champion, Howard R.

AU - Sacco, William J.

AU - Lawnick, Mary M.

AU - Gann, Donald S.

AU - Gennarelli, Thomas

AU - Mackenzie, Ellen J

AU - Schwaitzberg, Steven

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - A three-valued description of anatomic injury is presented. Anatomic profile (AP) components A, B, and C summarize serious injuries (>AIS 2) to the head/brain or spinal cord; to the thorax or front of the neck; and all remaining serious injuries. Relationships between AP components and survival rate reaffirm the seriousness of head injury. Logistic function models relating AP components and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to survival probability were based on 20, 946 Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) patients (9.2% mortality rate) submitted through 1986. Model performance comparisons were based on 5, 939 MTOS patients (7.8% mortality rate) submitted during 1987. The AP better discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors and provided a 31% increase in sensitivity when compared with the ISS. Neither the ISS nor the AP alone reliably predict patient outcome. The predictive power of methods for estimating patient survival probability which include physiologic indices or profiles, patient age, and an anatomic profile should be compared with current methods. The AP, which is based on the severity and location of all serious injuries, provides a more rational basis for comparing patient samples than the ISS.

AB - A three-valued description of anatomic injury is presented. Anatomic profile (AP) components A, B, and C summarize serious injuries (>AIS 2) to the head/brain or spinal cord; to the thorax or front of the neck; and all remaining serious injuries. Relationships between AP components and survival rate reaffirm the seriousness of head injury. Logistic function models relating AP components and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to survival probability were based on 20, 946 Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) patients (9.2% mortality rate) submitted through 1986. Model performance comparisons were based on 5, 939 MTOS patients (7.8% mortality rate) submitted during 1987. The AP better discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors and provided a 31% increase in sensitivity when compared with the ISS. Neither the ISS nor the AP alone reliably predict patient outcome. The predictive power of methods for estimating patient survival probability which include physiologic indices or profiles, patient age, and an anatomic profile should be compared with current methods. The AP, which is based on the severity and location of all serious injuries, provides a more rational basis for comparing patient samples than the ISS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025052451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025052451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2213928

AN - SCOPUS:0025052451

VL - 30

SP - 1200

EP - 1207

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 10

ER -