Feasible and predictive scoring systems for severely injured geriatric patients are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a scoring system for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in severely injured geriatric trauma patients. The TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) was utilized. European geriatric patients (≥65 years) admitted between 2008 and 2017 were included. Relevant patient variables were implemented in the GERtality score. By conducting a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, a comparison with the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and the Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISC-II) Score was performed. A total of 58,055 geriatric trauma patients (mean age: 77 years) were included. Univariable analysis led to the following variables: age ≥ 80 years, need for packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfusion prior to intensive care unit (ICU), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥ 3, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 13, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) in any body region ≥ 4. The maximum GERtality score was 5 points. A mortality rate of 72.4% was calculated in patients with the maximum GERtality score. Mortality rates of 65.1 and 47.5% were encountered in patients with GERtality scores of 4 and 3 points, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of the novel GERtality score was 0.803 (GTOS: 0.784; RISC-II: 0.879). The novel GERtality score is a simple and feasible score that enables an adequate prediction of the probability of mortality in polytraumatized geriatric patients by using only five specific parameters.

Background and objectives: The burden of geriatric trauma patients continues to rise in Western society. Injury patterns and outcomes differ from those seen in younger adults. Getting a better understanding of these differences helps medical staff to provide a better care for the elderly. The aim of this study was to determine epidemiological differences between geriatric trauma patients and their younger counterparts. To do so, we used data of polytraumatized patients from the TraumaRegister DGU^®. Materials and Methods: All adult patients that were admitted between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 were included from the TraumaRegister DGU^®. Patients aged 55 and above were defined as the elderly patient group. Patients aged 18–54 were included as control group. Patient and trauma characteristics, as well as treatment and outcome were compared between groups. Results: A total of 114,169 severely injured trauma patients were included, of whom 55,404 were considered as elderly patients and 58,765 younger patients were selected for group 2. Older patients were more likely to be admitted to a Level II or III trauma center. Older age was associated with a higher occurrence of low energy trauma and isolated traumatic brain injury. More restricted utilization of CT-imaging at admission was observed in older patients. While the mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) throughout the age groups stayed consistent, mortality rates increased with age: the overall mortality in young trauma patients was 7.0%, and a mortality rate of 40.2% was found in patients >90 years of age. Conclusions: This study shows that geriatric trauma patients are more frequently injured due to low energy trauma, and more often diagnosed with isolated craniocerebral injuries than younger patients. Furthermore, utilization of diagnostic tools as well as outcome differ between both groups. Given the aging society in Western Europe, upcoming studies should focus on the right application of resources and optimizing trauma care for the geriatric trauma patient.

Chronic osteomyelitis continues to represent a challenge both for patients and the treating physician, especially in the presence of multiple germs. We performed a literature review assessing the current role of the indications of bioactive glass. We included studies about patients with chronic osteomyelitis that were treated with S53P4. A literature review of Medline via PubMed was performed. After the exclusion of case reports, 7 studies were included in the narrative review. Recurrence of infection was defined as the main outcome parameter. Six of 7 studies were retrospective, or case studies with a relatively small sample size (total patient number N = 274). The overall recurrence rate was 10.6%. Studies that compared the outcome of the treatment with S53P4 versus antibiotic-loaded polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) revealed no significant difference. The data reviewed indicate that in cases of multiple bacteria and resistance to antibiotic treatment, bioglass may be a valuable treatment alternative to other forms of spacers (e.g., PMMA). This statement is limited by the fact that the number of described cases is very low. Therefore, a definitive statement of its effectiveness cannot be made at this point.

Introduction: There has been growing evidence in trauma literature that differences in insurance status lead to inequality in treatment and outcome. Most studies comparing uninsured to insured patients were done in the USA. We sought to gain further insights into differences in the outcomes of trauma patients in a healthcare system with mandatory public health coverage by comparing publicly versus privately insured patients. Methods: We used a prospective national quality assessment database from the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Qualitätssicherung in der Chirurgie (AQC). More than 80 surgical departments in Switzerland are part of this quality program. We included all patients in the AQC database with any S- or T-code diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases ICD-10 (any injuries) who were treated during the 11-year period of 2004–2014. Missing insurance status information was an exclusion criterion. In total, 30,175 patients were included for analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included overall and intra- and postoperative complications. Bi- and multivariate analyses were performed, adjusted for insurance status, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status category, type of injury, and surgeon’s level of experience. Results: In total, 76.8% (n = 23,196) of the patients were publicly insured. Patients with public insurance were significantly younger (p < 0.001), more often male (p < 0.001), and in better general health according to the ASA physical status category (p < 0.001). Length of pre- and postoperative stay and the number of operations per case were similar in the two groups. Patients with public insurance had a lower mortality rate (1.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), but after adjusting for confounders, insurance status was not a predictor of mortality. Overall complication rates were significantly higher for publicly insured patients (8.4% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), and after adjusting for confounders, insurance status was identified as an independent risk factor for overall complications (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Differences exist with respect to patient and procedural characteristics: publicly insured patients were younger, more often male, and scored better on ASA physical status. Insurance status seems not to be a predictor for fatal outcome after trauma, although it is associated with complications.

Introduction: Femoral shaft fractures are a common entity in trauma surgery. The gold standard is closed reduction and intramedullary nailing. However, in some fracture patterns, the surgeon may choose to open the fracture for reduction. The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze the outcome of femoral shaft fractures treated with open reduction, cerclage wiring and intramedullary nailing. Methods: We included adult patients with femoral shaft fractures treated with open reduction, cerclage wiring and intramedullary nailing at a level 1 trauma center in Switzerland during an 11-year period. The data collection was conducted retrospectively. Patient characteristics including age, sex and existing comorbidities were analyzed. Detailed information regarding the fracture patterns and surgical procedures was recorded. Outcome measures included the rates of malunion and nonunion, the time required for union, incidence of surgical site infections, and the frequency of revision surgeries. Results: We included a total of 69 patients, comprising 48 males and 21 females with a mean age of 50 years. A majority suffered a high velocity trauma (67%). The most common fracture type was multifragmentary subtrochanteric fracture. Approximately 57% of the patients underwent definitive surgical care within the first 24 h. Number of cerclages applied ranged from 1 to 4, with 18% positioned above the lesser trochanter. Delayed union occurred in 10% of cases, while nonunion was noted in 19% of patients. Complications included femoral head necrosis in 3 (4%) patients, and surgical site infections were documented in 3 (4%) cases. Conclusion: Our findings give rise to closed reduction and internal fixation as a treatment of choice of femoral shaft fractures. We suggest the use of ORIF combined with cerclages, if closed reduction cannot be sufficiently achieved. However, a risk–benefit ratio should be assessed to minimize the risk of a higher complication rate with the use of ORIF.

Introduction: In light of current discussions about centralisation and teaching in medicine, we wanted to investigate the differences in in-hospital outcomes after surgical treatment of isolated ankle fractures, taking into account high-volume centres (HVCs) and low-volume centres (LVCs) and teaching procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of malleolar fractures recorded in a National Quality Assurance Database (AQC) from the period 01-01-1998 to 31-12-2018 was carried out. Inclusion criteria were isolated, and operatively treated lateral malleolar fractures (ICD-10 Code S82.6 and corresponding procedure codes). Variables were sought in bivariate and multivariate analyses. A total of 6760 cases were included. By dividing the total cases arbitrarily in half, 12 HVCs (n = 3327, 49%) and 56 LVCs (n = 3433, 51%) were identified. Results: Patients in HVCs were younger (48 vs. 50 years old), had more comorbidities (26% vs. 19%) and had more open fractures (0.48% vs. 0.15%). Open reduction and internal fixation was the most common operative treatment at HVCs and LVCs (95% vs. 98%). A more frequent use of external fixation (2.5% vs. 0.55%) was reported at HVCs. There was no difference in mortality between treatment at HVCs and LVCs. A longer hospitalisation of 7.2 ± 5 days at HVCs vs. 6.3 ± 4.8 days at LVCs was observed. In addition, a higher rate of complications of 3.2% was found at HVCs compared to 1.9% at LVCs. The frequency of teaching operations was significantly higher at HVCs (30% vs. 26%). Teaching status had no influence on mortality or complications but was associated with a prolonged length of stay and operating time. Conclusion: We found significant differences between HVCs and LVCs in terms of in-hospital outcomes for ankle fractures. These differences could be explained due to a more severely ill patient population and more complex (also open) fracture patterns with resulting use of external fixation and longer duration of surgery. However, structural and organisational differences, such as an extended preoperative stays at HVCs and a higher teaching rate, were also apparent. No difference in mortality could be detected.