Cited by 108Airway Management and Intubation TechniquesTrauma Management and DiagnosisTracheal and airway disorders

A review of traumatic airway injuries: potential implications for airway assessment and management

Kummer, Carmen, Netto, Fernando Spencer, Rizoli, Sandro, Yee, Doreen·2007·Injury

Abstract

Background Obtaining a patent airway can be difficult in patients with traumatic airway injuries (TAI). There is a paucity of data available about the incidence of airway compromise and techniques used in these patients. Methods Charts review of all patients with TAI treated in a Regional Trauma Center from July 1989 to June 2005. Results One hundred and four patients were identified as TAI in the study period (incidence of 0.4% for blunt and 4.5% for penetrating trauma). Sixty-eighty patients were victims of penetrating trauma (ISS: 24+/-10; mortality: 16%). Thirty-six patients were blunt trauma victims (ISS: 33+/-16; mortality: 36%). Overall, 65% of the patients received a definitive airway (DA) in the pre-hospital setting or at the initial hospital assessment. Alternative techniques for obtaining DA including wound tracheal tube, surgical airway and intubation under fiberoptic bronchoscopy were used in 30% of the patients. Among 24 deaths, 10 were considered primarily due to the airway injury. Twelve patients presented with thoracic TAI with nine deaths in this subgroup. Conclusions Overall, the incidence of TAI is low. Blunt trauma TAI is less common, and these patients have a different clinical presentation, higher ISS and mortality than the penetrating TAI group. Early assessment of airways is crucial and DA was required in 2/3 of the patients with TAI. Lower airway injuries have higher mortality than upper airway injuries. Even though most patients died as a result of…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.injury.2006.09.002

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Primary airway trauma is relatively uncommon in the civilian urban setting, with a reported incidence of less than 1% (0.4% for blunt and 4.5% for penetrating injuries).

    “Primary airway trauma is relatively uncommon in the civilian urban setting, with a reported incidence of less than 1% (0.4% for blunt and 4.5% for penetrating injuries).67”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [67]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kummer, C., Netto, F. S., Rizoli, S., & Yee, D.
Corresponding author
  • Kummer, Carmen
  • Rizoli, Sandro
  • Yee, Doreen
Venue
Injury
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
27-33
ISSN
0020-1383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166993878
Cited by
108
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Injury (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Trauma Management and Diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Tracheal and airway disorders
Keywords
traumatic airway injury, airway management, penetrating trauma, blunt trauma, surgical airway, fiberoptic intubation, mortality, Injury Severity Score, prehospital airway management
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bronchoscopy, Female, Fiber Optic Technology, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Trauma, Respiratory System, Retrospective Studies, Tracheostomy, Wounds, Nonpenetrating, Wounds, Penetrating, Survival Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review