In this study, PFAST was a useful and reliable diagnostic tool when used as part of surgical triage at the trauma scene.

Since the introduction of rental E-scooters in Germany in mid-June 2019, the safety of this new means of transport has been the subject of extensive public debate. However, valid data on injuries and usage habits are not yet available. This retrospective two-center study included a total of 76 patients who presented to the emergency department following E-scooter-related accidents. The mean age was 34.3 ± 12.4 years and 69.7% of the patients were male. About half of the patients were admitted by ambulance (42.1%). Fractures were found in 48.6% of patients, and 27.6% required surgical treatment due to a fracture. The upper extremities were the most commonly affected body region, followed by injuries to the lower extremity and to the head and face. Only one patient had worn a helmet. In-hospital treatment was necessary for 26.3% of the cases. Patients presented to the emergency department mainly during the weekend and on-call times. This is the first report on E-scooter-related injuries in Germany. Accidents with E-scooters can cause serious injuries and, therefore, represent a further burden to emergency departments. The use of E-scooters appears to be mostly recreational, and the rate of use of protective gear is low.

This prospective study showed significantly superior outcomes in all clinical scores between GII and GI. The subanalysis of the high-grade injury type (Rockwood IV/V) revealed that these patients showed significant benefits from the dDBS procedure in the clinical assessments. The cHP procedure resulted in good to excellent clinical outcome data and displayed an alternative procedure for patients needing less restrictive rehabilitation protocols.

BackgroundIntraosseous (IO) access represents a reliable alternative to intravenous vascular access and is explicitly recommended in the current guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council when intravenous access is difficult or impossible. We therefore aimed to study the efficacy of the intraosseous needle driver EZ-IO® in the prehospital setting.MethodsDuring a 24-month period, all cases of prehospital IO access using the EZ-IO® needle driver within three operational areas of emergency medical services were prospectively recorded by a standardized questionnaire that needed to be filled out by the rescuer immediately after the mission and sent to the primary investigator. We determined the rate of successful insertion of the IO needle, the time required, immediate procedure-related complications, the level of previous experience with IO access, and operator's subjective satisfaction with the device.Results77 IO needle insertions were performed in 69 adults and five infants and children by emergency physicians (n = 72 applications) and paramedics (n = 5 applications). Needle placement was successful at the first attempt in all but 2 adults (one patient with unrecognized total knee arthroplasty, one case of needle obstruction after placement). The majority of users (92%) were relative novices with less than five previous IO needle placements. Of 22 responsive patients, 18 reported pain upon fluid administration via the needle. The rescuers' subjective rating regarding handling of the device and ease of needle insertion, as described by means of an analogue scale (0 = entirely unsatisfied, 10 = most satisfied), provided a median score of 10 (range 1-10).ConclusionsThe EZ-IO® needle driver was an efficient alternative to establish immediate out-of-hospital vascular access. However, significant pain upon intramedullary infusion was observed in the majority of responsive patients.

IntroductionThe Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) was established for the prehospital trauma care of patients. Improved rescue times and increased coverage areas are discussed as specific advantages of HEMS. We recently found evidence that HEMS exerts beneficial effects on outcomes for severely injured patients. However, it still remains unknown which group of trauma patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue. Consequently, the unique aim of this study was to reveal which patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue.MethodsTrauma patients (ISS ≥9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2002 and 2012 were analysed using the TraumaRegister DGU. A multivariate regression analysis was used to reveal the survival benefit between different trauma populations.ResultsThe study included 52 281 trauma patients. Of these, 68.8% (35 974) were rescued by GEMS and 31.2% (16 307) by HEMS. HEMS patients were more severely injured compared to GEMS patients (ISS: HEMS 24.8±13.5 vs. GEMS 21.7±18.0) and more frequently suffered traumatic shock (SBP sys <90mmHg: HEMS 18.3% vs. GEMS 14.8%). However, logistic regression analysis revealed that HEMS rescues resulted in an overall survival benefit compared to GEMS (OR 0.81, 95% CI [0.75–0.87], p<0.001, Nagelkerke's R squared 0.526, area under the ROC curve 0.922, 95% CI [0.919–0.925]). Analysis of specific subgroups demonstrated that patients aged older than 55 years (OR 0.62, 95% CI [0.50–0.77]) had the highest survival benefit after HEMS treatment. Furthermore, HEMS rescue had the most significant impact after ‘low falls’ (OR 0.68, 95% CI [0.55–0.84]) and in the case of minor severity injuries (ISS 9–15) (OR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49–0.88]).ConclusionsIn general, trauma patients benefit from HEMS rescue with in-hospital survival as the main outcome parameter. Focusing on special subgroups, middle aged and older patients, low-energy trauma, and minor severity injuries had the highest survival benefit when rescued by HEMS. Further studies are required to determine the potential reasons of this benefit.