Systematic review, level III.

Purpose Despite previous studies the management of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular (AC) dislocations remains controversial and the debate continues about whether patients with Rockwood type III AC injuries should be treated conservatively or operatively. In this study, we will review the current literature and present an overview of the outcome of conservative versus operative treatment of Rockwood type III dislocations. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was used to conduct this review. A systematic search was performed in the Pubmed, Cochrane library, Embase, Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Titles and abstracts were screened using predefined criteria and articles were critically appraised on relevance and validity. Results After critical appraisal eight articles were included in the study. The objective and subjective shoulder function outcome was better in the operative group, especially in young adults, though the rate of complications and radiographic abnormalities were higher. The rehabilitation time was shorter in the conservative group, however the cosmetic outcome was worse. Conclusions This review showed no conclusive evidence for the treatment of Rockwood type III AC dislocations. Overall, physically active young adults seem to have a slight advantage in outcome when treated operatively.

The temporal distribution of trauma deaths in our hospital changed as maturation of the trauma centre occurred. There is one peak of trauma deaths in the first hour after admission, followed by a rapid decline; no trimodal distribution was observed. Over time, there was a decrease in exsanguinations and an increase of deaths due to CNS injury.

This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

IntroductionTrauma systems were developed to improve the care for the injured. The designation and elements comprising these systems vary across countries. In this study, we have compared the demographic patterns and patient outcomes of Level I trauma centers in three international trauma systems.MethodsInternational multicenter prospective trauma registry-based study, performed in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), Utrecht, the Netherlands, John Hunter Hospital (JHH), Newcastle, Australia, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC), Seattle, the United States. Inclusion: patients ≥18 years, admitted in 2012, registered in the institutional trauma registry.ResultsIn UMCU, JHH, and HMC, respectively, 955, 1146, and 4049 patients met the inclusion criteria of which 300, 412, and 1375 patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Mean ISS was higher in JHH (13.5; p < 0.001) and HMC (13.4; p < 0.001) compared to UMCU (11.7). Unadjusted mortality: UMCU = 6.5 %, JHH = 3.6 %, and HMC = 4.8 %. Adjusted odds of death: JHH = 0.498 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.303–0.818] and HMC = 0.473 (95 % CI 0.325–0.690) compared to UMCU. HMC compared to JHH was 1.002 (95 % CI 0.664–1.514). Odds of death patients ISS > 15: JHH = 0.507 (95 % CI 0.300–0.857) and HMC = 0.451 (95 % CI 0.297–0.683) compared to UMCU. HMC = 0.931 (95 % CI 0.608–1.425) compared to JHH. TRISS analysis: UMCU: Ws = 0.787, Z = 1.31, M = 0.87; JHH, Ws = 3.583, Z = 6.7, M = 0.89; HMC, Ws = 3.902, Z = 14.6, M = 0.84.ConclusionThis study demonstrated substantial differences across centers in patient characteristics and mortality, mainly of neurological cause. Future research must investigate whether the outcome differences remain with nonfatal and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we must focus on the development of a more valid method to compare systems.