32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Akutversorgung von Weichteilverletzungen im Kopf-Hals-Bereich Translated title: Acute care of soft tissue injuries in the head and neck region

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Hintergrund

          Weichteilverletzungen sind häufig Folge von Traumata im Kopf-Hals-Bereich. Einheitliche Versorgungsleitlinien zu erstellen, erweist sich als schwierig, da die Verletzungsmuster der Patienten häufig hochindividuell sind. Ziel dieser Datenerhebung war es, eine Übersicht über die Verteilung der Weichteilverletzungen zu verschaffen und die Akutversorgung der einzelnen Krankheitsbilder darzustellen.

          Material und Methoden

          Es erfolgte eine retrospektive Auswertung anhand aller traumarelevanten ICD-10-Codes für Traumata des Kopfes (S00.- bis S09.-) und des Halses (S10.- bis S19.-), die in einem Zeitraum von zehn Jahren (2012 bis einschließlich 2021) an unserem Klinikum, einem zertifizierten überregionalen Traumazentrum, behandelt wurden.

          Ergebnisse

          Insgesamt wurden im Beobachtungszeitraum 8375 Patienten mit Traumata des Kopfes und Halses versorgt, also durchschnittlich 836 Patienten jährlich. Innerhalb dieses Kollektivs wurden 2981 Trauma mit Weichteilverletzungen dokumentiert. Oberflächliche Verletzungen des Kopfes (S00.-) und offene Wunden des Kopfes (S01.-) waren mit 1649 bzw. 920 Fällen die häufigsten Weichteilverletzungen des Kopf-Hals-Bereichs.

          Schlussfolgerung

          Die Fallzahlen der Weichteilverletzungen haben in der Regel einen inversen Zusammenhang zum benötigten zugrunde liegenden Trauma. Diagnosen der Kategorie S00 und S01 kommen deshalb häufiger vor als beispielsweise traumatische Amputationen in Halshöhe (S18). Penetrierende Traumata des Halses sollten gemäß aktueller Literatur nach einem sog. No-Zone-Prinzip versorgt werden. Aufgrund der niedrigen Kriminalitätsraten und strengen Waffenschutzgesetze sind Verletzungen solcher Art in Europa eher selten.

          Translated abstract

          Background

          Soft tissue injuries are a common consequence of head and neck trauma. With injuries being highly individual and varying depending on the underlying trauma, it is difficult to establish standardized guidelines for head and neck trauma in general. The main goal of this study was to showcase the distribution of soft tissue injury types and the principles pertaining to acute care of the individual clinical presentations.

          Materials and methods

          A retrospective evaluation was carried out using all trauma-relevant ICD-10 codes for trauma to the head (S00.- to S09.-) and neck (S10.- to S19.-) among patients who were treated at the authors’ clinic—a certified national trauma center—during a period of 10 years (2012 to and including 2021).

          Results

          A total of 8375 patients with head and neck trauma were treated during the observation period, i.e., an average of 836 patients per year. Within this collective, 2981 trauma cases involving soft tissue injuries were documented. Superficial injuries to the head (S00.-) and open wounds to the head (S01.-) were the most common head and neck soft tissue injuries, with 1649 and 920 cases, respectively.

          Conclusion

          The case numbers of soft tissue injuries generally show an inverse correlation to the required underlying trauma: diagnoses of the categories S00 and S01 occur very often; injuries which only occur after severe trauma, such as traumatic amputation at neck level (S18), are rare. According to current literature, penetrating neck traumas should be treated using a no-zone approach. In Europe, penetrating neck injuries are rather rare because of low crime rates and strict weapon laws.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Penetrating neck trauma: a review of management strategies and discussion of the 'No Zone' approach.

          The evaluation and management of hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating neck injury has evolved considerably over the previous four decades. Algorithms developed in the 1970s focused on anatomic neck "zones" to distinguish triage pathways resulting from the operative constraints associated with very high or very low penetrations. During that era, mandatory endoscopy and angiography for Zone I and III penetrations, or mandatory neck exploration for Zone II injuries, became popularized, the so-called "selective approach." Currently, modern sensitive imaging technology, including computed tomographic angiography (CTA), is widely available. Imaging triage can now accomplish what operative or selective evaluation could not: a safe and noninvasive evaluation of critical neck structures to identify or exclude injury based on trajectory, the key to penetrating injury management. In this review, we discuss the use of CTA in modern screening algorithms introducing a "No Zone" paradigm: an evidence-based method eliminating "neck zone" differentiation during triage and management. We conclude that a comprehensive physical examination, combined with CTA, is adequate for triage to effectively identify or exclude vascular and aerodigestive injury after penetrating neck trauma. Zone-based algorithms lead to an increased reliance on invasive diagnostic modalities (endoscopy and angiography) with their associated risks and to a higher incidence of nontherapeutic neck exploration. Therefore, surgeons evaluating hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating neck injuries should consider departing from antiquated, invasive algorithms in favor of evidence-based screening strategies that use physical examination and CTA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Penetrating neck injuries: a guide to evaluation and management

            Introduction Penetrating neck injury is a relatively uncommon trauma presentation with the potential for significant morbidity and possible mortality. There are no international consensus guidelines on penetrating neck injury management and published reviews tend to focus on traditional zonal approaches. Recent improvements in imaging modalities have altered the way in which penetrating neck injuries are now best approached with a more conservative stance. A literature review was completed to provide clinicians with a current practice guideline for evaluation and management of penetrating neck injuries. Methods A comprehensive MEDLINE (PubMed) literature search was conducted using the search terms ‘penetrating neck injury’, ‘penetrating neck trauma’, ‘management’, ‘guidelines’ and approach. All articles in English were considered. Articles with only limited relevance to the review were subsequently discarded. All other articles which had clear relevance concerning the epidemiology, clinical features and surgical management of penetrating neck injuries were included. Results After initial resuscitation with Advanced Trauma Life Support principles, penetrating neck injury management depends on whether the patient is stable or unstable on clinical evaluation. Patients whose condition is unstable should undergo immediate operative exploration. Patients whose condition is stable who lack hard signs should undergo multidetector helical computed tomography with angiography for evaluation of the injury, regardless of the zone of injury. Conclusions The ‘no zonal approach’ to penetrating neck trauma is a selective approach with superior patient outcomes in comparison with traditional management principles. We present an evidence-based, algorithmic and practical guide for clinicians to use when assessing and managing penetrating neck injury.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of ear reattachment methods: a review of 25 years since Pennington.

              A failed ear reattachment tends to complicate subsequent reconstruction with autogenous rib cartilage. The various reattachment methods differ in technical demand, in the secondary damage of periauricular tissue, and in aesthetic outcome. In the past 25 years, the microsurgical method has proven to be especially successful. The aim of this work was to assess case reports of auricular trauma since the first microsurgical ear replantation by Pennington. An extensive review of the literature of acute ear trauma published between 1980 and 2004 was performed. For a better comparison, the type of damage, the reattachment technique, and the final outcome were categorized. Representative cases of traumatic auricular lesions, which were reconstructed with rib or conchal cartilage at the authors' hospital, were included. Seventy-four cases in 56 publications were analyzed. The microsurgical replantation showed excellent aesthetic results but demanded an intensive perioperative and postoperative treatment. Pocket methods were used mainly in partial amputations. Repairs with periauricular tissue flaps made a quite inconsistent impression. Direct reattachments, such as composite grafts, were indicated only in extended lacerations. To replant an avulsed auricle is still a challenge for surgeons. Microsurgically reanastomosed ear replantation appears to be the best method because a superior outcome can be achieved without jeopardizing a subsequent ear reconstruction with rib cartilage in case of failure. The pocket method and periauricular skin or fascia flaps should be abandoned. They rarely achieve such a consistently good aesthetic outcome as a secondary reconstruction with rib cartilage.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                b.hofauer@tum.de
                Journal
                HNO
                HNO
                Hno
                Springer Medizin (Heidelberg )
                0017-6192
                1433-0458
                10 October 2022
                10 October 2022
                : 1-7
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.15474.33, ISNI 0000 0004 0477 2438, Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, , Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, ; Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 München, Deutschland
                [2 ]GRID grid.7708.8, ISNI 0000 0000 9428 7911, Klinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, , Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, ; Freiburg, Deutschland
                Article
                1231
                10.1007/s00106-022-01231-4
                9549442
                36214837
                f9339cbc-b1f0-4020-85f9-1433bd31993d
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden.

                Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.

                Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.

                History
                : 8 September 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München (8934)
                Categories
                Originalien

                kopf-hals-trauma,traumatologie,larynxtrauma,ohramputation,penetrierendes halstrauma,head and neck trauma,traumatology,laryngeal trauma,ear amputation,penetrating neck injury

                Comments

                Comment on this article