Early intubation for EI as well as DI was safe and effective. One third of the DI patients had significant head injury. Surgical airways were rarely needed and delayed intubations were uncommon. The intubation rates for EI and DI varied significantly among TSs. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines may not identify all patients who would benefit from early intubation after injury.

METH use in trauma patients increased significantly and was associated with adverse outcomes and a significant financial burden on our trauma center. Evidence-based prevention efforts must be a priority for trauma centers to help stop the scourge of METH.

No abstract

In stable trauma patients with a normal CPE, CXR appears to be unnecessary in their initial evaluation. CXR should be relegated to a role similar to cervical spine and pelvis radiographs in the initial evaluation of hemodynamically stable trauma patients with a normal physical examination, and should be limited to use only for clear clinical indications.

CE was used in patients with more severe injuries, and particularly in those with more severe head injuries. When adjusted for injury severity, CE was not associated with worsened survival, and therefore may reasonably be included in the armamentarium of neurotrauma care. Use of CE by our neurosurgeons, however, varied significantly. These findings underscore the need for practice guidelines based on randomized trials to fully evaluate the role of CE in the management of TBI.

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SCTT is effective in managing chest trauma. It is comparable with LCTT in stable trauma patients. This study supports adopting image-guided small catheter techniques in the management of chest trauma in stable patients.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR. Methods: We developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs). Results: ECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations. Conclusions: From a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.