Skip to main content
. 2009 Feb;11(1):50–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2008.00010.x

Table 3.

SNOM versus FNOM versus OM: demographics, severity of injury, treatment and outcome

SNOM (n = 31) FNOM (n = 4) OM (n = 11) Total (n = 46)
Patient factors
Age 35 ± 21 24 ± 9 31 ± 17 33 ± 19
Male 12 (39%) 1 (25%) 5 (46%) 18 (39%)
Haemodynamics in the ER
Admission sBPa,c,d,e 134 ± 19 99 ± 16 93 ± 21 120 ± 27
Instabilityb,c,d,e 1 (3%) 1 (25%) 9 (82%) 11 (24%)
Investigations
Acute CT performedc,d,e 31 (100%) 4 (100%) 7 (64%) 42 (91%)
Findings on acute CT-scan
Grade no. 2 (2–3) 2.5 (0.5–3) 1.5 (0–4) 2 (2–3)
≥Grade III 10 (32%) 2 (50%) 4 (57%) 16 (38%)
Amount HP 1 (0–3) 3 (3–3) 3 (1.75) 3 (0–3)
Large HPa 14 (45%) 4 (100%) 4 (57%) 22 (52%)
Extent of damage
Associated injuriesc,d 22 (71%) 3 (75%) 11 (100%) 36 (78%)
Interventions*c,d,e 6 (19%) 2 (50%) 8 (73%) 16 (35%)
Abdominal injuriesb,c,d,e 3 (10%) 1 (25%) 10 (91%) 14 (30%)
ISSb,c,d,e 12 ± 9 14 ± 14 32 ± 13 17 ± 13
ISS > 15b,c,d,e 6 (19%) 1 (25%) 10 (91%) 17 (37%)
Hospital stay
ICU daysc,d,e 2 ± 4 4 ± 2 8 ± 7 4 ± 5
SW daysc,d 12 ± 9 14 ± 11 29 ± 27 16 ± 17
Total LOSc,d,e 14 ± 12 17 ± 11 38 ± 31 20 ± 20
Transfusion requirements
Patients receiving Txc,d,e 8 (26%) 2 (50%) 10 (91%) 20 (43%)
Blood Txc,d,e 1 ± 2 20 ± 30 28 ± 24 9 ± 18
Outcome
Complicationsc,e 9 (29%) 3 (75%) 7 (64%) 19 (41%)
Interventions*c,e 3 (10%) 3 (75%) 5 (46%) 11 (24%)
Mortalitya,e 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (9%) 2 (4%)

ER, emergency room; sBP, systolic blood pressure; HP, haemoperitoneum; ISS, injury severity score; ICU, intensive care unit; SW, surgical ward; LOS, length of stay; Tx, transfusion requirements.

a

Significant SNOM vs. FNOM, P < 0.05.

b

Significant FNOM vs. OM.

c

Significant SNOM vs. OM P < 0.05.

d

Significant NOM vs. OM P < 0.05.

e

Significant SNOM vs. FNOM + OM P < 0.05.

*

Associated injuries/complications demanding some kind of intervention.

Numbers presented as mean ± SD, number of patients (% of total) or median (interquartile range).