Changing incidence and management of penetrating neck injuries in the South East London trauma centre

17Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: A total of 17 cases of penetrating neck injury were managed by the otolaryngology team at King's College Hospital over a 3-year period in the 1980s. In April 2010 King's College Hospital became the major trauma centre for South East London. This prospective cohort study compares the incidence, changing demographic features and treatment outcomes of penetrating neck trauma in South East London over the previous 23 years. Methods: Data were collected over a 12-month period (April 2010 to March 2011) and a selective management protocol was introduced to standardise initial investigations and further treatment. Results: The past 23 years have seen a 550% increase in the incidence of penetrating neck injuries in South East London, with a marked increase in gun crime. Only 38% of cases underwent negative neck exploration in 2011 compared with 65% in 1987. Selective conservative management based on the absence of haemodynamic instability or radiological findings reduces length of hospital stay, lightens surgical workload and cuts costs without affecting morbidity or mortality. Conclusions: The increased incidence of penetrating neck injury is a reflection of more interpersonal violence rather than a consequence of the larger South East London trauma centre catchment area. Tackling this problem requires focus on wider issues of community prevention. Sharing of data between the four London trauma centres and the police is needed to help prevent interpersonal violence and develop a universal treatment algorithm for other institutions to follow.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Harris, R., Olding, C., Lacey, C., Bentley, R., Schulte, K. M., Lewis, D., … Oakley, R. (2012). Changing incidence and management of penetrating neck injuries in the South East London trauma centre. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 94(4). https://doi.org/10.1308/003588412X13171221590052

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free