Open vs Endovascular Treatment of Traumatic Peripheral Arterial Injury: Propensity Matched Analysis

Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism and Eventual Amputation in Traumatic Femoral and Iliac Vein Injuries: A Trauma Quality Improvement Program Analysis

BACKGROUND

Iliac and femoral venous injuries represent a challenging dilemma in trauma surgery with mixed results. Venous restoration of outflow (via repair or bypass) has been previously identified as having higher rates of VTE (venous thromboembolism) compared to ligation. We hypothesized that rates of VTE and eventual amputation were similar whether restoration of venous outflow vs ligation was performed at initial operation.

METHODS

Patients in the 2019-2021 National Trauma Data Bank with iliac and femoral vein injuries were abstracted and analyzed. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital lower extremity amputation and VTE.

RESULTS

A total of 2642 patients with operatively managed iliac and femoral vein injuries were identified VTE was found in 10.8% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression was performed and identified bowel injury, higher ISS, older age, open repair, and longer time to VTE prophylaxis initiation as independent predictors of VTE. Amputation was required in 4.2% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression identified arterial or nerve injury, femur or tibia fracture, venous ligation, percutaneous intervention, fasciotomy, bowel injury, and higher ISS as independent factors of amputation.

CONCLUSION

Venous restoration was not an independent predictor of VTE. Venous ligation on index operation was the only modifiable independent predictor of amputation identified on regression analysis.

Open versus endovascular repair of penetrating non-aortic arterial injuries: A systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-aortic arterial injuries are common and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Historically, open surgical repair (OSR) was the conventional method of repair. With recent advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endovascular repair (ER) has gained popularity. We sought to compare outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular and open repairs of traumatic non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus Database from January 1st, 1990, to March 20th, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full text review. Articles assessing clinically important outcomes between OSR and ER in penetrating arterial injuries were included. Exclusion criteria included blunt injuries, aortic injuries, pediatric populations, review articles, and non-English articles. Odds ratios (OR) and Cohen's d ratios were used to quantify differences in morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3770 articles were identified, of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The articles comprised a total of 8369 patients of whom 90 % were male with a median age of 28 years. 85 % of patients were treated with OSR while 15 % underwent ER. With regards to injury characteristics, those who underwent ER were less likely to present with concurrent venous injuries (OR: 0.41; 95 %CI: 0.18, 0.94; p = 0.03). Regarding hospital outcomes, patients who underwent ER had a lower likelihood of in-hospital or 30-day mortality (OR: 0.72; 95 %CI: 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.02) and compartment syndrome (OR: 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.12, 0.71; p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair of non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries is increasingly common, however open repair remains the most common approach. Compared to ER, OSR was associated with higher odds of compartment syndrome and mortality. Further prospective research is warranted to determine the patient populations and injury patterns that most significantly benefit from an endovascular approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses.

Five-year outcomes after bypass graft versus Fogarty balloon catheter for the treatment of acute blunt popliteal artery injury

PURPOSE

To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes after revascularization by bypass graft versus Fogarty balloon catheter in acute blunt popliteal artery injury and identify risk factors contributing to amputation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted in patients treated for acute blunt PAI between 2011 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent bypass graft and Fogarty balloon catheter. The cumulative limb salvage rate was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier test and compared with Breslow-Wilcoxon test. Cox proportional hazard model was performed to estimate the potential risk factors for amputation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal cut-off value for the potential risk factors.

RESULTS

The overall limb salvage rate was 60.4% (29/48), including 24 patients (66.7%) in bypass graft, and 5 patients (41.7%) in Fogarty balloon catheter with mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 2-10 years). Among amputees, 15 patients (15/19, 78.9%) received primary amputation due to vascular failure or severe soft tissue damage, and 4 received secondary amputation because of chronic bone infection or neurologic deficit. Kaplan-Meier curves showed patients who received Fogarty balloon catheter had significantly higher amputation rate than those received bypass graft, with a hazard ratio of 3.801 (95% CI: 1.162-12.43, p = 0.009). In addition, Cox proportional hazard model revealed that MESS was the only independent risk factor for patients developing amputation, and the optimal cut-off value of MESS was 8.

CONCLUSION

Five-year outcome demonstrated that Fogarty balloon catheter is not a safe procedure and has significantly higher amputation rate in severe blunt PAI. MESS is the only risk factor for amputation.

The Characteristics and Results of Endovascular Devices in Trauma (CREDiT) study: Multi-institutional results

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular techniques are increasingly used to repair major traumatic vascular injuries, but most endovascular implants are not designed/approved for trauma-specific indications. No inventory guidelines exist for the devices used in these procedures. We aimed to describe the use and characteristics of endovascular implants used for repair of vascular injuries to allow for better inventory management.

METHODS

This CREDiT study is a six-year retrospective cohort analysis of endovascular procedures performed for repair of traumatic arterial injuries at five participating US trauma centers. For each treated vessel, procedural and device details were recorded and outcomes assessed with the aim of defining the range of implants and sizes used for these interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 94 cases were identified; 58 (61%) were descending thoracic aorta, 14 (15%) axillosubclavian, 5 carotid, 4 abdominal aortic, 4 common iliac, 7 femoropopliteal, and 1 renal. Vascular surgeons performed 54% of cases, trauma surgeons 17%, IR/CT Surgery 29%. Systemic heparin was administered in 68% and procedures were performed a median of 9 h after arrival (IQR 3-24 h). Primary arterial access was femoral in 93% of cases, 49% were bilateral. Brachial/radial access was used primarily in 6 cases, and secondary to femoral in 9. The most common implant was self-expanding stent graft; 18% used >1 stent. Implants ranged in diameter and length based on vessel size. Five of 94 implants underwent reintervention (1 open surgery) at a median of 4d postop (range 2-60d). Two occlusions and 1 stenosis were present at follow-up at a median of 1 month (range 0-72 m).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular reconstruction of injured arteries requires a broad range of implant types, diameters, and lengths which should be readily available in trauma centers. Stent occlusions/stenoses are rare and can typically be managed by endovascular means.

Treatment of vascular non-iatrogenic injuries of upper and lower extremities in tertiary vascular center

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine demographic and baseline characteristics of patients with vascular injuries of extremities and to define the most relevant factors which influenced an early outcome, as well as limb salvage after the management of vascular trauma.

METHODS

This study used the database that included 395 patients with peripheral arterial injuries, who were treated in the tertiary vascular university center in the period between 2005-2020. Exclusion criteria were isolated thoracic, abdominal and neck injuries as well as iatrogenic injuries and injuries of intravenous addicts. Univariate binary logistic regression analysis and multiple logistic regression were used to determine risk factors for lomb loss (after vascular reconstruction) or mortality. Decision to perform primary amputation (without vascular reconstruction) was based on surgeons' preference and experience.

RESULTS

Out of 395 vascular injuries treated in the period 2005-2020, 210 (53.2%) presented with non-iatrogenic vascular injuries of upper and lower extremities were analyzed. According to the univariate regression analysis, hemorrhage as the main clinical manifestation on admission (P=0.035) and early reintervention (P=0.048) increased, while an early patency of repaired artery (0.010) significantly decreased a 30-day amputation rate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of these three variables showed that only early patency of repaired artery significantly decreased the early amputation rate (P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on presented experience, the patency of vascular reconstruction plays a crucial role in limb salvage in patients with non-iatrogenic peripheral vascular injuries. All factors that might influence the patency should be in focus of improvement.