Five-Year Management of Vascular Injuries of the Extremities in the "Real-World" Setting in Northeastern Greece: The Role of Iatrogenic Traumas

Predicting the future caretakers of traumatic vascular injury management via operative exposure among surgical trainees

BACKGROUND

The management of vascular trauma requires specialized training and expertise. Although traumatic vascular injury is treated currently by both vascular and trauma surgeons in modern practice, it remains unclear who will inherit the role of managing vascular trauma in the coming decades. In this study, we examined disparities in operative experience in vascular trauma among surgical trainees across different surgical specialties.

METHODS

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education national operative log reports were collected for graduating vascular surgery residents (VSRs), vascular surgery fellows (VSFs), and general surgery residents (GSRs) from 2012 to 2022. Total operative volume for traumatic vascular injury was examined, as were the five major contributing operative domains (neck, thoracic, abdominal, peripheral, and fasciotomy).

RESULTS

A total of 22,052 GSRs, 334 VSRs, and 1672 VSFs graduated over the 10-year study period. VSR had the highest vascular trauma case volume (24.9 ± 3.9 cases/5 years), followed by VSF (22.1 ± 1.5 cases/2 years) then GSR (2.4 ± 0.3 cases/5 years; P < .001). Thoracic vessel exploration/repair (0.7 cases vs 0.6 cases vs 0.0 cases), abdominal vessel exploration/repair (1.0 cases vs 0.9 cases vs 0.0 cases), neck vessel exploration/repair (4.0 cases vs 3.4 cases vs 0.2 cases), peripheral vessel exploration/repair (12.1 cases vs 9.5 cases vs 1.1 cases), and lower extremity fasciotomy for trauma (7.2 cases vs 7.6 cases vs 1.1 cases) were most frequent among the VSR and VSF groups (P < .001 each). On linear regression analysis, both VSF (+0.5 cases/y; R2 = 0.81; P < .001) and GSR (+0.1 cases/y; R2 = 0.75; P = .001) groups experienced a growth in vascular trauma volume. Contrariwise, vascular trauma volume did not change among graduating VSRs (R2 = 0.13; P = .31).

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated vascular surgical training provides the highest operative exposure to civilian vascular trauma in the United States.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular therapy versus open surgical repair for the traumatic lower extremity arterial injury

OBJECTIVE

For traumatic lower extremity artery injury, it is unclear whether it is better to perform endovascular therapy (ET) or open surgical repair (OSR). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ET versus OSR for traumatic lower extremity artery injury.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies. Cohort studies and case series reporting outcomes of ET or OSR were eligible for inclusion. Robins-I tool and an 18-item tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was amputation. The secondary outcomes included fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, mortality, length of stay and lower extremity nerve injury. We used the random effects model to calculate pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies with low or moderate risk of bias were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that patients who underwent ET had a significantly decreased risk of major amputation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.85; I2=34%) and fasciotomy or compartment syndrome (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.50, I2 = 14%) than patients who underwent OSR. No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding all-cause mortality (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.75-1.64, I2 = 31%). Patients with ET repair had a shorter length of stay than patients with OSR repair (MD=-5.06, 95% CI -6.76 to -3.36, I2 = 65%). Intraoperative nerve injury was just reported in OSR patients with a pooled incidence of 15% (95% CI 6%-27%).

CONCLUSION

Endovascular therapy may represent a better choice for patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury, because it can provide lower risks of amputation, fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, and nerve injury, as well as shorter length of stay.

Therapeutic management and amputation options in a long time delayed blunt popliteal artery injury

PURPOSE

To report the experience of treatment on blunt traumatic popliteal artery injury (PAI) combined orthopedic injuries and determine the amputation-associated factors.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2019, 55 patients in level I trauma center with traumatic blunt PAI were retrospectively reviewed. Variables were retrospectively collected and statistically analyzed. Patients with PAI with limb selvage, primary amputation, and secondary amputation were retrospectively grouped and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients with a median age of 41.4 years (range 18-70), of which 45 were males (81.8%) and 10 were females (18.2%), were enrolled. The overall amputation rate was 36.4% because 88.6% of patients faced more than 6 h of delay before treatment. The average injury severe score (ISS) and abbreviated injury score (AIS) were 10.4 (range 9-34) and 8.2 (range 5-16), respectively. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the number of hospitalization days was a significantly related factor to amputation. After a median follow-up of 56 months (range 12-132), no death, another limb loss, or claudication was found in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PAI are commonly accompanied by multiple injuries that increase the risk of amputation; therefore, timely treatments are urgently required. Reducing the severity of ischemia by fasciotomy, not losing time by performing preoperative imaging or diagnostic tests, and repairing the associated venous injury can help to optimize the rates of limb salvage. However, impact factors, such as the gender and age of the patient, injured mechanisms, concomitant injuries, AIS, ISS, and surgical times, are not associated with the outcomes of amputation. Nonetheless, endeavors to salvage the limbs as far as possible should be made.