Trauma is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. Approximately 10% of the burden of disease in adults is due to traumatic injuries. Trauma can lead to serious consequences, including disabilities, psychosocial burdens, and increased mortality among the actively working population. Cardiopulmonary arrest, unplanned admissions to intensive care units, and nosocomial infections are some complications faced by trauma patients admitted to trauma centers. The estimated mortality rate for hospitalized trauma patients is 11%. The in-hospital mortality rate for trauma patients who undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is 92.7%. Trauma-related mortality and morbidity depend on injury severity, diagnostic delays, and the time taken to reach a medical facility. Timely evaluation, effective post-trauma care, and appropriate triage can significantly reduce long-term mortality and morbidity among trauma patients, with rapid assessment of trauma severity being crucial for the primary triage of multiple trauma patients.

Trauma scoring systems are essential tools in the medical field for evaluating the severity of injuries and predicting patient outcomes. Two notable scoring systems are the Thorax Trauma Severity Score (TTSS) and the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TISS), each serving unique purposes in assessing thoracic injuries and overall trauma severity. The TTSS was developed to provide a comprehensive assessment of thoracic injuries by incorporating both anatomical and physiological parameters. It specifically focuses on various aspects of chest trauma, including:

Age of the patient Ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) Presence of pleural injuries Lung contusions Rib fractures The scoring system ranges from 0 to 25 points, where higher scores indicate more severe injuries and worse prognoses. Research has shown that a TTSS score of 7 or above is highly predictive of morbidity and mortality, achieving 100% sensitivity and 97.73% specificity for poor outcomes in isolated thoracic trauma cases. The TISS is another critical scoring system used to evaluate overall injury severity across multiple body regions. It is based on the Injury Severity Score (ISS), which categorizes injuries according to their anatomical location using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The ISS is calculated by taking the highest AIS scores from the three most severely injured body regions, squaring them, and summing these values.

Despite their utility, both TTSS and TISS have limitations, especially when applied to diverse patient populations. The TTSS may not adequately account for the severity of injuries outside the thoracic region, which can significantly impact patient outcomes. For instance, a study highlighted that in patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, only 44% had a TTSS above 8, indicating that critical extra-thoracic injuries were not reflected in the TTSS scoring. Older patients or those with comorbidities may present with less obvious thoracic injuries that the TTSS fails to identify. This oversight can lead to underestimating the risk of complications or mortality, as older individuals often have a higher propensity for severe outcomes despite seemingly minor trauma. The TISS may not capture specific details related to chest trauma effectively. This limitation is crucial in regions with variable healthcare infrastructure, like Iraq, where injury mechanisms and patient demographics can differ widely. The TISS's general approach may overlook critical factors that influence trauma severity in these populations.

This study seeks to address the specific needs of the Iraqi healthcare system by comparing the TTSS and TISS as predictive tools for chest trauma outcomes in emergency settings. The aim is to identify which scoring system is more reliable and practical for use in Iraq, considering the unique challenges faced by emergency departments, such as high patient volumes and resource constraints. The research fills a critical gap in the literature by providing data specific to Iraq, where comparative analyses of these scoring systems are lacking. Insights gained from this study could inform local protocols, enhance triage efficiency, and improve patient outcomes in Iraqi emergency departments .