A comparison of functional outcome in patients sustaining major trauma: a multicentre, prospective, international study

Timothy H Rainer, Hiu Hung Yeung, Belinda Jane Gabbe, Kai Y Yuen, Hiu Fai Ho, Chak W Kam, Annice Chang, Wai S Poon, Peter Cameron, Colin A Graham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To compare 6 month and 12 month health status and functional outcomes between regional major trauma registries in Hong Kong and Victoria, Australia. Summary Background Data: Multicentres from trauma registries in Hong Kong and the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR). Methods: Multicentre, prospective cohort study. Major trauma patients and aged 18 years were included. The main outcome measures were Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) functional outcome and risk-adjusted Short-Form 12 (SF- 12) health status at 6 and 12 months after injury. Results: 261 cases from Hong Kong and 1955 cases from VSTR were included. Adjusting for age, sex, ISS, comorbid status, injury mechanism and GCS group, the odds of a better functional outcome for Hong Kong patients relative to Victorian patients at six months was 0.88 (95 CI: 0.66, 1.17), and at 12 months was 0.83 (95 CI: 0.60, 1.12). Adjusting for age, gender, ISS, GCS, injury mechanism and comorbid status, Hong Kong patients demonstrated comparable mean PCS-12 scores at 6-months (adjusted mean difference: 1.2, 95 CI: 21.2, 3.6) and 12-months (adjusted mean difference: 20.4, 95 CI: 23.2, 2.4) compared to Victorian patients. Keeping age, gender, ISS, GCS, injury mechanism and comorbid status, there was no difference in the MCS-12 scores of Hong Kong patients compared to Victorian patients at 6-months (adjusted mean difference: 0.4, 95 CI: 22.1, 2.8) or 12-months (adjusted mean difference: 1.8, 95 CI: 20.8, 4.5). Conclusion: The unadjusted analyses showed better outcomes for Victorian cases compared to Hong Kong but after adjusting for key confounders, there was no difference in 6-month or 12-month functional outcomes between the jurisdictions
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere103396
Number of pages9
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume9
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Cite this