BackgroundWe aim to explore and target factors contributing to disparities in trauma-care outcomes between urban vs rural trauma centers including EMS protocols, trauma centers’ (TC) distribution, infrastructure, and hospital resources. MethodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted from January 1988 through April 1st, 2024, using Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane, ProQuest, and PubMed. Included studies evaluated prehospital and in-hospital factors impacting trauma outcomes in urban and rural care settings. Key outcomes of interest were EMS transport times, TC access, inter-hospital transfers, trauma system utilization, and workforce infrastructure. ResultsA review of 29 studies demonstrated prolonged EMS on-scene and transport times, higher undertriage rates, and lower geospatial access to TCs in rural compared to urban settings. Transferring from rural to urban TCs was associated with increased mortality and designating rural TCs as Level III TCs reduced mortality (32 % decrease, p < 0.0001). The unregulated expansion of TCs did not improve patient access or outcomes. Rural hospitals lacked specialized providers, had more hospitalizations (x̄ rural = 685.4 vs x̄ urban = 566.3; p = 0.005), ICU admissions (20.2% vs 11.6 %, p = 0.042), and ventilation requirements (37.8% vs 20.7 %, p = 0.001) among trauma patients. ConclusionsRural trauma patients often experience worse outcomes than their urban counterparts, possibly due to longer prehospital times, reduced TC access, and less specialized care. The designation of targeted Level III TCs in rural areas has been associated with improved outcomes. In contrast, unregulated TC expansion has not necessarily enhanced access or outcomes for rural patients.

IntroductionThe routine collection of long-term patient health outcomes after serious traumatic injury at the health service level is uncommon. In 2019, we implemented the longitudinal Trauma Service Follow Up (TSFU) program at a level I trauma centre. Delivered by the trauma service clinicians involved in inpatient care, it assesses quality of life and disability. This study reports the 6- and 12-month outcomes of the first two years of operation of the TSFU program. MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study of seriously injured adult trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma centre with 6- and 12-months post-discharge outcome assessments. Outcomes were quality of life and function/disability as measured using the EQ-5D-5L and WHODAS 2.0 validated instruments. Changes from 6 to 12 months were assessed using generalised estimating equations methods. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with ongoing problems at each time point. ResultsFive-hundred and eight seriously injured patients were eligible for the TSFU program with follow-up rates over 80 % at both 6- and 12-month timepoints. At six months, ongoing problems with pain (69.9 %), anxiety and depression (49 %) and carrying out usual activities (57.5 %) were highly prevalent; at 12 months problems with pain (61.4 %) and anxiety and depression (43.8 %) persisted. Lower extremity and/or pelvic surgery was associated with ongoing pain, odds ratio (OR) = 3.77 (95 % CI 1.54–9.21, p=0.01), anxiety and depression (OR 1.95, 95 % CI 1.09–3.48, p=0.02) and problems carrying out their usual activities (OR 3.19, 95 % CI 0.75–13.5, p=0.11) at six months. These patterns mostly persisted at 12 months. Similar associations between surgical intervention and high levels of disability were evident at both time points. ConclusionPersistent impairments in physical and emotional health continues to affect many people following serious traumatic injury. The collection of longitudinal health outcomes by trauma clinicians enables identification of factors that contribute to disability and a reduction in quality of life. This in turn can drive quality improvement initiatives within the hospital trauma system. Longitudinal follow-up programs may provide a platform to provide ongoing specialist trauma-informed care after hospital discharge.

IntroductionImplant removal after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures is common. Mini-fragment implants have gained popularity for their smaller size, with studies showing similar load to failure to small-fragment implants. We hypothesized mini-fragment implant use for ORIF of the distal fibula is associated with a lower implant removal rate and without an increase in implant failure. MethodsIn this retrospective review study at two level-one trauma centers, adult patients (>18 years) with a lateral malleolar or bimalleolar fracture were included. Chart review was performed to determine if patients received ORIF of the distal fibula with mini-fragment implants or small-fragment implants. The primary outcome was elective implant removal of the fibular plate. Secondary outcomes included complications requiring reoperation. ResultsFive-hundred and five patients were included with a mean age of 50.6 ± 17.8 years old with a mean follow-up of was 75.7 ± 61.0 weeks. Sixty patients (11.9 %) received mini-fragment fixation. The rate of elective distal fibula implant removal for the mini-fragment group was 8.3 % (5 of 60) compared to 10.8 % (48 of 445) in the small-fragment group (p = .66). The complication rate was 6.7 % (4 of 60) for the mini fragment group versus 6.5 % (29 of 445) for the small fragment group (p = 1.00). Logistic regression demonstrated that each additional week of follow-up increased the implant removal rate with the observed odd ratio (OR) of 1.007 (95 % CI 1.002–1.012). ConclusionElective implant removal rates and complications requiring reoperation were similar between mini-fragment and small-fragment fixation of distal fibula fractures. The hypothetical benefit of low-profile mini-fragment implants should be balanced with the higher implant cost.