Background The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) Injury Severity Score (ICISS) is a risk adjustment model when injuries are recorded using ICD-9-CM coding. The trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM-ICD9) provides better calibration and discrimination compared with ICISS and injury severity score (ISS). Though TMPM-ICD9 is statistically rigorous, it is not precise enough mathematically and has the tendency to overestimate injury severity. The purpose of this study is to develop a new ICD-10-CM injury model which estimates injury severities for every injury in the ICD-10-CM lexicon by a combination of rigorous statistical probit models and mathematical properties and improves the prediction accuracy. Methods We developed an injury mortality prediction (IMP-ICDX) using data of 794,098 patients admitted to 738 hospitals in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2015 to 2016. Empiric measures of severity for each of the trauma ICD-10-CM codes were estimated using a weighted median death probability (WMDP) measurement and then used as the basis for IMP-ICDX. ISS (version 2005) and the single worst injury (SWI) model were re-estimated. The performance of each of these models was compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC), the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion statistic. Results IMP-ICDX exhibits significantly better discrimination (AUCIMP-ICDX, 0.893, and 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.887 to 0.898; AUCISS, 0.853, and 95% CI, 0.846 to 0.860; and AUCSWI, 0.886, and 95% CI, 0.881 to 0.892) and calibration (HLIMP-ICDX, 68, and 95% CI, 36 to 98; HLISS, 252, and 95% CI, 191 to 310; and HLSWI, 92, and 95% CI, 53 to 128) compared with ISS and SWI. All models were improved after the extension of age, gender, and injury mechanism, but the augmented IMP-ICDX still dominated ISS and SWI by every performance. Conclusions The IMP-ICDX has a better discrimination and calibration compared to ISS. Therefore, we believe that IMP-ICDX could be a new viable trauma research assessment method.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)-based systems such as injury severity score (ISS), exponential injury severity score (EISS), trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM), and injury mortality prediction (IMP), classify anatomical injuries with limited accuracy. The widely accepted alternative, trauma and injury severity score (TRISS), improves the prediction rate by combining an anatomical index of ISS, physiological index (the Revised Trauma Score, RTS), and the age of patients. The study introduced the traumatic injury mortality prediction (TRIMP) with the inclusion of extra clinical information and aimed to compare the ability against the TRISS as predictors of survival. The hypothesis was that TRIMP would outperform TRISS in prediction power by incorporating clinically available data. This was a retrospective cohort study where a total of 1,198,885 injured patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2014 were subset from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) in the United States. A TRIMP model was computed that uses AIS 2005 (AIS_05), physiological reserve and physiological response indicators. The results were analysed by examining the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion. TRIMP gave both significantly better discrimination (AUCTRIMP, 0.964; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.962 to 0.966 and AUCTRISS, 0.923; 95% CI, 0.919 to 0.926) and calibration (HLTRIMP, 14.0; 95% CI, 7.7 to 18.8 and HLTRISS, 411; 95% CI, 332 to 492) than TRISS. Similar results were found in statistical comparisons among different body regions. TRIMP was superior to TRISS in terms of accurate of mortality prediction, TRIMP is a new and feasible scoring method in trauma research and should replace the TRISS.

Objective. To investigate the different efficacy of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) combined with or without a microexternal fixator in the treatment of coral-plane femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Methods. 120 patients with intertrochanteric coronal fractures who received treatment in four hospitals from February 2020 to February 2021 were retrospectively included in this study. They were divided into control (PFNA alone, n = 60) and combined treatment group (a microexternal fixator + PFNA, n = 60) according to different surgery methods. All patients were followed up for 6 months. Operative time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative length of hospital stays, fracture healing time, Harris hip score, modified Barthel index, hip function excellent and good rate, and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. Results. There were no significant differences in operative time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative length of hospital stay, and incidence of complications between the two groups (all P  > 0.05). Fracture healing time in the combined treatment group was significantly shorter than that in the control group ( P  < 0.05). After surgery, Harris hip score and modified Barthel index in each group were significantly increased compared with before surgery (both P  < 0.05). The increases in Harris hip score and modified Barthel index in the combined treatment group were significantly greater than those in the control group (both P  < 0.05). After surgery, Harris hip function excellent and good rate in the combined treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group (83.33% > 66.67%, P  < 0.05). Conclusion. Compared with PFNA alone, a microexternal fixator combined with PFNA for the treatment of coronal plane femoral intertrochanteric fractures can greatly shorten fracture healing time and improve postoperative hip function and activities of living ability, but it cannot greatly increase operative time, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, or the risk of postoperative complications.