Table 4 Summary of series’ comparing hybrid emergency department (ED) versus the conventional trauma workflow without a hybrid ED
From: Systematic review of the efficacy of a hybrid operating theatre in the management of severe trauma
Author, Institution, Year | Hybrid ED | Conventional | Baseline features (Hybrid ED versus Conventional) | Outcomes (Hybrid ED versus Conventional) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wada, OGMC, 2012 | 21 | 27 | No significant difference | Shorter time to CT initiation and end of CT Shorter time to start of bleeding control procedures No significant difference in 28-day mortality | 1 patient in the hybrid group and 7 patients in the conventional group were transferred to the OT for emergency surgery |
Kinoshita, OGMC, 2019 | 336 | 360 | Difference in mechanism of injury (fewer motor vehicle accidents) Higher prothrombin time international normalized ratio | Shorter time to CT initiation Shorter time to emergency procedure Decreased 28-day mortality Reduced number of deaths from exsanguination | Outcomes confirmed with propensity score analyses |
Ito, TUSM, 2020 | 24 | 72 | Younger age Greater proportion of patients with traumatic brain injuries, Glasgow Coma scale of < / = 8 and intubated on admission Lower Revised Trauma Score More frequent REBOA insertion and simultaneous or subsequent laparotomy/thoracotomy More frequent massive transfusion protocol activation | No difference in time from arrival to CT scan Shorter time from arrival to angioembolization No differences in rates of angioembolization complications, infectious complications and in-hospital mortality | Evaluated all patients who underwent angioembolization for pelvic fracture |