Injury
Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 84-90, January 2007

Scoring of anatomic injury after trauma: AIS 98 versus AIS 90—do the changes affect overall severity assessment?

  • Nils O. Skaga

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anaesthesiology, Ulleval University Hospital, 0407 Oslo, Norway
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +47 22119690; fax: +47 22283245.
  • ,
  • Torsten Eken

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anaesthesiology, Aker University Hospital, Trondheimsveien 235, 0514 Oslo, Norway
  • ,
  • Morten Hestnes

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anaesthesiology, Ulleval University Hospital, 0407 Oslo, Norway
  • ,
  • J. Mary Jones

      Affiliations

    • Mathematics Department, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK
  • ,
  • Petter A. Steen

      Affiliations

    • University of Oslo, University Division UUH, Department of Anaesthesiology, Ulleval University Hospital, 0407 Oslo, Norway

Accepted 16 April 2006.

Summary 

Background

Although several changes were implemented in the 1998 update of the abbreviated injury scale (AIS 98) versus the previous AIS 90, both are still used worldwide for coding of anatomic injury in trauma. This could possibly invalidate comparisons between systems using different AIS versions. Our aim was to evaluate whether the use of different coding dictionaries affected estimation of Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and probability of survival (Ps) according to TRISS in a hospital-based trauma registry.

Materials and methods

In a prospective study including 1654 patients from Ulleval University Hospital, a Norwegian trauma referral centre, patients were coded according to both AIS 98 and AIS 90. Agreement between the classifications of ISS, NISS and Ps according to TRISS methodology was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% CI.

Results

ISS changed for 378 of 1654 patients analysed (22.9%). One hundred and forty seven (8.9%) were coded differently due to different injury descriptions and 369 patients (22.3%) had a change in ISS value in one or more regions due to the different scoring algorithm for skin injuries introduced in AIS 98. This gave a minimal change in mean ISS (14.74 versus 14.54). An ICC value of 0.997 (95% CI 0.9968–0.9974) for ISS indicates excellent agreement between the scoring systems. There were no significant changes in NISS and Ps.

Conclusions

There was excellent agreement for the overall population between ISS, NISS and Ps values obtained using AIS 90 and AIS 98 for injury coding. Injury descriptions for hypothermia were re-introduced in the recently published AIS 2005. We support this change as coding differences due to hypothermia were encountered in 4.3% of patients in the present study.

Keywords: ISS, NISS, AIS, Anatomic injury, Probability of survival, Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)

 

PII: S0020-1383(06)00303-2

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.123

Injury
Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 84-90, January 2007