A Comparison of Functional Outcome in Patients Sustaining Major Trauma: A Multicentre, Prospective, International Study

OBJECTIVES To compare 6 month and 12 month health status and functional outcomes between regional major trauma registries in Hong Kong and Victoria, Australia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Multicentres from trauma registries in Hong Kong and the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR). METHODS Multicentre, prospective cohort study. Major trauma patients and aged ≥18 years were included. The main outcome measures were Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) functional outcome and risk-adjusted Short-Form 12 (SF-12) health status at 6 and 12 months after injury. RESULTS 261 cases from Hong Kong and 1955 cases from VSTR were included. Adjusting for age, sex, ISS, comorbid status, injury mechanism and GCS group, the odds of a better functional outcome for Hong Kong patients relative to Victorian patients at six months was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.17), and at 12 months was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.12). Adjusting for age, gender, ISS, GCS, injury mechanism and comorbid status, Hong Kong patients demonstrated comparable mean PCS-12 scores at 6-months (adjusted mean difference: 1.2, 95% CI: -1.2, 3.6) and 12-months (adjusted mean difference: -0.4, 95% CI: -3.2, 2.4) compared to Victorian patients. Keeping age, gender, ISS, GCS, injury mechanism and comorbid status, there was no difference in the MCS-12 scores of Hong Kong patients compared to Victorian patients at 6-months (adjusted mean difference: 0.4, 95% CI: -2.1, 2.8) or 12-months (adjusted mean difference: 1.8, 95% CI: -0.8, 4.5). CONCLUSION The unadjusted analyses showed better outcomes for Victorian cases compared to Hong Kong but after adjusting for key confounders, there was no difference in 6-month or 12-month functional outcomes between the jurisdictions.