García-Núñez LM, Cabello-Pasini R, Padilla-Solís R, Garduño-Manjarrez P

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 159-168
PDF size: 74.36 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. The analysis of massive urban destruction, as occurred on September 11, 2001, in Manhattan, New York, United States of America, allows to us to determine the nature and behavior of these facts and organize the distribution of the human and material resources for planning the best solution to the problem.
Source of data. Bibliographic and “on-line” research of current information related to epidemiology of massive urban casualties.
Results. From 5 to 26% of patients evaluated in Emergency Departments require hospital admission. Major causes of hospital admission are inhalation injuries and burns; major multisystemic trauma is rarely seen. Among these admitted patients, 11-13% require surgical treatment and 6-17% are treated in Critical Care Units, most of them (88%) are undergoing mechanical ventilation. Between 5-15% of patients present injury severity scores (ISS) ›15; ‹2% of them show a score ›25. Overall mortality among patients in case of massive urban destruction is 16-25%; immediate mortality rate (on the disaster setting) is 90-99%.
Conclusions. Despite the fact these events generate a large number of casualties, only a small proportion of them require high-specialty medical treatment. It is of critical importance to collaborate in maintaining the physical integrity of the rescue workers.

REFERENCES

1. 1.- Wang D, Sava J, Sample G, Jordan M. The Pentagon and 9/11. Crit Care Med 2005; 33 S:S42-S7.

3. 2.- Kirschenbaum L, Keene A, O’Neill P, Westfal R, Astiz ME. The experience at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Manhattan, on September 11, 2001: Preparedness, response, and lessons learned. Crit Care Med 2005; 33 S: S48-S52.

5. 3.- Cushman J, Pachter HL, Beaton HL. Two New York City hospitals’ surgical response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack in New York City. J Trauma 2003; 54:147-55.

7. 4.- Frykberg ER, Tepas J, Alexander R. The 1983 Beirut Airport terrorist bombing: injury patterns and implications for disaster management. Am Surg 1989; 55:134-41.

9. 5.- Mallonee S, Shariat S, Stennies G. Physical injuries and fatalities resulting from the Oklahoma City bombing. JAMA 1996; 276:382-7.

11. 6.- Maningas PA, Robison M, Mallonee S. The EMS response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Prehosp Disaster Med 1997; 12:80-5.

13. 7.- Thompson D, Brown S, Mallonee S, Sunshine D. Fatal and non-fatal injuries among U.S. Air Force personnel resulting from the terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers. J Trauma 2004; 57:208-15.

15. 8.- Arnold JL, Halpern P, Tsai MC, Smithline H. Mass casualty terrorist bombings: a comparison of outcomes by bombing type. Ann Emerg Med 2004; 43:263-73.

17. 9.- Severance HW. Mass-casualty victim “surge” management. Preparing for bombings and blast-related injuries with possibility of hazardous materials exposure. NCJM 2002; 63:242-6.

19. 10.- Frykberg ER. Disaster and mass casualty management: a comment on the ACS position statement. Bull Am Coll Surg 2003; 88:12-3.

21. 11.- Peral-Gutiérrez de Cevallos J, Turégano-Fuentes F, Pérez-Díaz D, Sanz-Sánchez M, Martín-Llorente C, Guerrero-Sanz JE. 11 March 2004: the terrorist bomb explosions in Madrid, Spain – an analysis of the logistics, injuries sustained and clinical management of casualties treated at the closest hospital. Crit Care 2004; 8:in press.

23. 12.- Hirshberg A. Managing mass casualties: a no-nosense approach. Guiding problems. Proceedings of the Trauma Surgery and Surgical Critical Care Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2005; 1:25-33.