不同来院方式对多发伤患者预后的临床研究

目的 探讨不同转运方式对区域内多发伤患者预后生存概率和ISS评分的影响。方法 选取2011年6月至2013年12月我院接诊收治的多发伤患者140例,分别采用欧洲国家为代表的“就地抢救（Stay and play）”的方法（n=98）和以北美国家为代表的“拉了就跑（Scoop and run）”的急救方法（n=42）,比较两种转运方式多发伤患者的生存概率和ISS评分。结果 两组转运方式比较,“就地抢救”ISS评分为（15.80±2.9）分,“拉了就跑”ISS评分为（15.36±2.1）分,ISS评分比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,“就地抢救”Ps（ASCOT）生存概率和Ps（TRISS）生存概率分别为92.86%、93.88%,“拉了就跑”则分别为80.95%、83.33%,生存概率比较差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;“拉了就跑”患者的好转率为64.3%,明显低于“就地抢救”的80.0%,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论 在我区采用就地抢救的方式治疗多发伤患者效果更好。

Clinical observation of the influence of different modes of transporting on the prognosis of patients with multiple traumas

Objective To explore the influence of different modes of transport on prognosis and the ISS score in patients with multiple trauma. Methods A total of 140 patients with multiple traumas were selected. One group received the ＂on-site rescue （stay and play）＂ method （n=98）, and the other group was given ＂pull the run （run and run）＂ emergency method （n=42）. Survival rates nd that of the＂pull the run＂method group was （15.36 ± 2.1）. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. The surviand the ISS scores were compared between the two groups. Results The ISS score of the on-site rescue method group was （15.80 ± 2.9） aval rates of Ps （ASCOT） and Ps （TRISS） in on-site rescue method group were 92.86% and 93.88% respectively, while those were 80.95%and 83.33%in the“pull the run”method group respectively. There were statistical significant differences （P〈0.05）. Furthermore, the recovery rate of＂pull the run＂method group （64.3%） was significantly lower than that of the＂on-site rescue＂method group （80.0%）, with a statistical significant difference （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The on-site res-cue method shows better effects in the treatment of multiple traumas in our area.