Background: The mechanism and outcome of traumatic abdominal injury (TAI) varies worldwide. Moreover, data\ncomparing TAIs in each abdominal compartment are lacking. We aimed to assess from the academic point of view,\nTAI based on its anatomical compartments.\nPatients & methods: We conducted a retrospective study for TAI patients between 2008 and 2011 in Qatar.\nPatients were categorized according to the involved anatomical compartment (C): intrathoracic (ITC), retroperitoneal\n(RPC), true abdomen (TAC), and pelvic abdomen (PAC) group. Chi Square test, One-Way ANOVA and multivariate\nregression analysis were appropriately performed.\nResults: Of 6,888 patients admitted to the trauma unit, 1,036 (15%) had TAI that were grouped as ITC (65%), RPC (15%),\nTAC (13%), and PAC (7%). The mean age was lowest in ITC (29 �± 13) and highest in TAC (34 �± 11) group, (P = 0.001).\nMotor vehicle crash was the main mechanism of injury in all groups except for PAC, in which fall dominated. Vast\nmajority of expatriates had PAC and TAC injuries. The main abdominal injuries included liver (35%; ITC), spleen (32%;\nITC) and kidneys (18%; RPC). Extra-abdominal injuries involved the head in RPC and ITC, lung in ITC and RPC and\nextremities in PAC. Mean ISS was higher in RPC and ITC. Abdominal AIS was higher in TAC injuries. Overall hospital\nmortality was 10%: RPC (15%), TAC (11%), ITC (9.4%) and PAC (1.5%). Concurrent traumatic brain injury (OR 5.3;\nP = 0.001) and need for blood transfusion (OR 3.03; P = 0.003) were the main independent predictors of mortality.\nConclusion: In addition to its academic value, the anatomical approach of TAI would be a complementary tool for\nbetter understanding and prediction of the pattern and outcome of TAI. This would be possible if further research\nfind accurate, early diagnostic tool for this anatomical classification.
Loading....