Current management of penetrating torso trauma: nontherapeutic is not good enough anymore

Non-therapeutic laparotomies in military trauma (2009-2014)

BACKGROUND

Combat casualties are frequently injured in austere settings where modern imaging modalities are unavailable. Exploratory laparotomies are often performed in these settings when there is suspicion for intra-abdominal injury. Prior studies of combat casualties reported non-therapeutic laparotomy (NTL) rates as high as 32%. Given improvements in combat casualty care over time, we evaluated NTLs performed during later years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

METHODS

Military personnel with combat-related injuries (6/1/2009-12/31/2014) who underwent exploratory laparotomy based on concern for abdominal injury (i.e. not performed for proximal vascular control or fecal diversion) and were evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (Germany) before being transferred to participating U.S. military hospitals were assessed. An NTL was defined as a negative laparotomy without substantial intra-abdominal injuries requiring repair. Characteristics, indications for laparotomy, operative findings, and outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Among 244 patients who underwent laparotomies, 41 (16.8%) had NTLs and 203 (83.2%) had therapeutic laparotomies (i.e. positive findings). Patients with NTLs had more computed tomography scans concerning for injury (48.8% vs 27.1%; p = 0.006), less penetrating injury mechanisms (43.9% vs 71.9%; p < 0.001), and lower Injury Severity Scores (26 vs 33; p = 0.003) compared to patients with therapeutic laparotomies. Patients with NTLs were also less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (70.7 vs 89.2% for patients with therapeutic laparotomies; p = 0.007). No patients with NTLs developed abdominal surgical site infections (SSI) compared to 16.7% of patients with therapeutic laparotomies (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups (p = 0.198).

CONCLUSIONS

Our proportion of NTLs was lower than reported from earlier years during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No infectious complications from NTLs (i.e. abdominal SSIs) were identified. Nevertheless, surgeons should continue to have a low threshold for exploratory laparotomy in military patients in austere settings with concern for intra-abdominal injury.

Epidemiology and outcomes of patients with penetrating trauma in Incheon Metropolitan City, Korea based on National Emergency Department Information System data: a retrsopective cohort study

Purpose

Patients with penetrating injuries are at a high risk of mortality, and many of them require emergency surgery. Proper triage and transfer of the patient to the emergency department (ED), where immediate definitive treatment is available, is key to improving survival. This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology and outcomes of patients with penetrating torso injuries in Incheon Metropolitan City.

Methods

Data from trauma patients between 2014 and 2018 (5 years) were extracted from the National Emergency Department Information System. In this study, patients with penetrating injuries to the torso (chest and abdomen) were selected, while those with superficial injuries were excluded.

Results

Of 66,285 patients with penetrating trauma, 752 with injuries to the torso were enrolled in this study. In the study population, 345 patients (45.9%) were admitted to the ward or intensive care unit (ICU), 20 (2.7%) were transferred to other hospitals, and 10 (1.3%) died in the ED. Among the admitted patients, 173 (50.1%) underwent nonoperative management and 172 (49.9%) underwent operative management. There were no deaths in the nonoperative management group, but 10 patients (5.8%) died after operative management. The transferred patients showed a significantly longer time from injury to ED arrival, percentage of ICU admissions, and mortality. There were also significant differences in the percentage of operative management, ICU admissions, ED stay time, and mortality between hospitals.

Conclusions

Proper triage guidelines need to be implemented so that patients with torso penetrating trauma in Incheon can be transferred directly to the regional trauma center for definitive treatment.

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography abdomen versus diagnostic laparoscopy-based management in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma: a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Penetrating abdominal trauma was traditionally managed by mandatory exploration, which led to high rates of non-therapeutic surgery and prolonged hospital stay. Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) is a less-invasive alternative; however, it requires general anaesthesia and carries a potential risk of iatrogenic injuries. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT)-guided selective non-operative management (SNOM) may avoid surgery altogether, but there is apprehension of missed injury. Randomised trials comparing these two modalities are lacking. This study is aimed at comparing outcomes of these two management approaches.

METHODS

Hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating trauma to anterior abdominal wall were randomised in 1:1 ratio to DL or CECT-based management. Primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were rate of non-therapeutic surgery, complications, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

RESULTS

There were 52 patients in DL group and 54 patients in CECT group. Mean LOS was comparable (3 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.423). Rate of non-therapeutic surgery was significantly lower in CECT group (65.4 vs 17.4%, p = 0.0001). Rate of complications and length of ICU stay were similar. Selective non-operative management based on CECT findings was successful in 93.8% of patients; 2 patients had delayed surgery.

CONCLUSION

In patients with penetrating trauma to anterior abdominal wall, DL and CECT-based management led to comparable hospital stay. Significant reduction in non-therapeutic surgery could be achieved using a CECT-based approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials registry-India (CTRI/2019/04/018721, REF/2019/01/023400).

The Impact of Prehospital Spinal Immobilization in Patients with Penetrating Spinal Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Penetrating injuries, such as gunshot or stab wounds, may cause spinal cord injuries and require prehospital spinal immobilization (PHSI) to stabilize the spine. However, the use of PHSI in penetrating spinal injuries remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy of prehospital PHSI in patients with penetrating trauma. We systematically searched Google Scholar, Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE between January 2000 and July 2021. All studies in English that assessed PHSI in patients (>16 years) with penetrating spinal injuries were included. Quality and risk of bias assessments were performed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis was conducted. Our search identified 928 studies but only 6 met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. All of the included studies were conducted in the US and the number of patients ranged from 156–75,567 over 3–9 study years. The majority of patients were gunshot or stab wounds. Three studies demonstrated an increased risk of mortality with spinal collars whilst the remaining three studies failed to show any benefits or the benefits remained unproven. All studies were retrospective studies with some risks of bias. This review highlights that the evidence from the literature on PHSI in penetrating trauma outweigh its benefits; thus, its use is discouraged in penetrating spinal trauma. However, further high-quality research is necessary to reach definitive conclusions and to possibly identify suitable alternatives to PHSI for penetrating spinal trauma.

Expectant management in delayed presentation of war casualties with penetrating abdominal trauma

INTRODUCTION

While the management of acute civilian abdominal injuries is well established, The literature regarding the management of battle-related abdominal injuries presented in a delayed fashion is scarce. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety of non-operative management approach in delayed evacuation of battle-related abdominal injuries.

METHODS

Clinical records of thirty-seven hemodynamically normal patients with battle related injuries and Computed Tomography (CT) findings of penetrating abdominal trauma were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

All 37 patients suffered penetrating abdominal injuries during the civil war in Syria. In this complex scenario, the casualties presented after a minimum 12-hour delay to our hospital. All patients had abnormal abdominal CT scans with no clinical peritoneal signs. Twenty-one [of the 37] patients exhibited 29 hard signs on CT scan. Of these, 17 patients were treated non-operatively and 4 underwent exploratory laparotomy (of which 2 were non-therapeutic). Sixteen patients exhibited a total of 75 soft signs on CT scan; 15 were treated non-operatively and one underwent non-therapeutic laparotomy. No complications were recorded in either the operative or non-operative groups. In total, 32 patients (86%) were treated non-operatively. Five patients (14%) underwent exploratory laparotomy (3 of which were non-therapeutic). Length of stay was dependent on the unique requirements of each individual patient as determined by the state department for returning across the border.

CONCLUSION

We propose that in battle related casualties, acute survivable penetrating abdominal trauma may be safely treated non-operatively in selected patients who are hemodynamically normal and in whom there is an absence of abdominal pain or tenderness on repeated clinical assessment.

Incidence, causes and factors associated with torso injury in Cameroon: A community-based study

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and mortality linked to injury has become an increasingly important public health concern worldwide, especially in developing countries. Despite the potentially severe nature of torso injury, little is known about the population-based epidemiology of torso injury in sub-Saharan Africa.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence, identify common mechanisms, and assess the socioeconomic consequences of torso injury in Cameroon.

METHODS

We performed a torso injury sub-analysis of a larger descriptive cross-sectional community-based study on injury epidemiology in the preceding 12 months in the Southwest region of Cameroon. Sampling was done using the three-stage cluster sampling technique. The differences between groups were evaluated using χ² and adjusted Wald tests.

RESULTS

We identified 39 cases of torso injuries out of 8 065 participants, providing a yearly incidence estimate of 488 (95% confidence interval (CI) 356 - 668) per 100 000 person-years. Road traffic injury was the most common mechanism of torso injury. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) cost of treatment for torso injury was USD58 (10 - 137), over four times the median (IQR) cost for non-torso injury at USD12 (3 - 43) (p=0.0004). About half of affected households (51%) reported being unable to afford necessities such as rent and food after injury v. 33% of households with members with non-torso injuries (p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Torso injuries have an incidence of 488/100 000 person-years, and road traffic injuries account for the majority of the injuries. Road traffic control measures and trauma care strengthening may reduce the impact of torso injuries and injuries in Cameroon.

Nonoperative Management of Penetrating Right Thoracoabdominal Injury

Penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries caused by stabbing or firearms are seen on an almost daily basis at trauma centers in the USA. The nonoperative management of carefully selected hemodynamically stable patients is still under dispute. We present a case of right thoracoabdominal firearm injury managed nonoperatively.

Selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma at a level 1 Canadian trauma centre: a quest for perfection

Background

Many patients who sustain penetrating abdominal trauma can be managed nonoperatively. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) has published guidelines on selective nonoperative management (SNOM), and this approach is well established. The purpose of this study is to assess the management of penetrating abdominal trauma, including the selection of patients for SNOM and the use of this approach, at a Canadian level 1 trauma centre.

Methods

We used the Hamilton Health Sciences trauma registry to compile data on patients aged 16 years and older who sustained penetrating abdominal trauma from Jan. 1, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2017. Hemodynamically stable, nonperitonitic patients without evisceration or impalement were considered potentially eligible for SNOM. We compared the SNOM group of patients with the immediate operative (IOR) group. Our primary outcome was SNOM failure; secondary outcomes included length of stay, repeat imaging, computed tomography (CT) protocol, laparoscopy in left thoracoabdominal trauma, and nontherapeutic and negative laparotomies.

Results

We included 191 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma; 123 underwent SNOM and 68 underwent IOR. Of the 68 patients in the IOR group, 4 underwent nontherapeutic laparotomies. Of the 123 patients in the SNOM group, this approach failed in 7 (5.7%). Patients who were successfully managed with SNOM had an average length of stay of 25.4 hours (7.9–43.0 h), with no repeat imaging in 34/35 (97.1%). Only 5 of the 47 patients with flank/back wounds had a CT scan that included luminal contrast. Only 3 of the 58 patients with left thoracoabdominal wounds underwent same-admission laparoscopy, all demonstrating diaphragmatic defects.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates a high rate of compliance with the EAST SNOM guidelines, including minimal failure rate of SNOM and an efficient use of resources as demonstrated by reduced length of stay and minimal use of reimaging. We identified 2 opportunities for improvement: improved use of luminal contrast CT in patients with flank/back wounds and improved use of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with left thoracoabdominal wounds.

Diagnostic laparoscopy or selective non-operative management for stable patients with penetrating abdominal trauma: What to choose?

Background

Selective non-operative management (NOM) and diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) are well-accepted approaches in the management of stable patients with penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of early DL in stable asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with PAT as opposed to NOM, a standard of care in this scenario. The secondary aim was to suggest possible indications for DL.

Methods

Patients managed with DL or NOM over a 12-month period were included in this study. The age, gender, mechanism and location of injuries, trauma scores, haemodynamic and metabolic parameters, intraoperative findings and length of hospital stay (LOS) were recorded and correlated with outcomes.

Results

Thirty-six patients were in the NOM group and 35 in the DL group. Stab wounds were more common. The most common location of injury was the anterior abdominal wall in the NOM group and the lower chest in the DL group. Computed tomography (CT) scan was performed more often in the NOM group (75% vs. 17.1%). The injury severity score (ISS), New ISS and PAT Index were higher in the DL group. Nearly 23 (66%) patients in the DL group had a penetration of the peritoneum, but no significant abdominal injuries. LOS in the NOM group was 2 days versus 3.1 days in the DL group. There were no missed injuries, complications or mortality.

Conclusion

NOM is a preferred modality for minimally symptomatic stable patients. However, there is a risk of missed injuries and delayed treatment. DL accurately visualizes injuries, decreases unnecessary CT scans and avoids nontherapeutic laparotomies.

Use of the iTClamp versus standard suturing techniques for securing chest tubes: A randomized controlled cadaver study

Objectives

Tube thoracostomy (TT) is a common yet potentially life-saving trauma procedure. After successful placement however, securing a TT through suturing is a skillset that requires practice, risking that the TT may become dislodged during prehospital transport. The purpose of this study was to examine if the iTClamp was a simpler technique with equivalent effectiveness for securing TTs.

Materials and methods

In a cadaver model, a 1.5 inch incision was utilized along the upper border of the rib below the 5th intercostal space at the anterior axillary line. TTs (sizes 28Fr, 32Fr, 36Fr and 40Fr) were inserted and secured with both suturing and iTClamp techniques according to the preset randomization. TT were then functionally tested for positive and negative pressure as well as the force required to remove the TT (pull test-up to 5 lbs). Time to secure the TT was also recorded.

Results

When sutured is placed by a trained surgeon, the sutures and iTClamp were functionally equivalent for holding a positive and negative pressure. Mean pull force for both sutures and iTClamp exceeded the 5 lb threshold; there was no significant difference between the groups. Securing the TT with the iTClamp was significantly faster (p < 0.0001) with the iTClamp having a mean application time of 37.0 ± 22.8 s and using a suture had a man application time of 96.3 ± 29.0 s.

Conclusion

The iTClamp was effective in securing TTs. The main benefit to the iTClamp is that minimal skill is required to adequately secure a TT to ensure that it does not become dislodged during transport to a trauma center.

The use of laparoscopy in managing penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries in Africa: 83 cases reviewed

Background

The use of laparoscopy in managing haemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries in developed countries is wildly practiced, but in Africa, the use of laparoscopy is still in its infancy stage. We reviewed a single centre experience in using laparoscopy in Africa for management of patients with both isolated diaphragmatic injuries as well as diaphragmatic injuries associated with intra-abdominal injuries requiring intervention.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients presenting with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries was done. All patients offered laparoscopic exploration and repair from January 2012 to December 2015 at Dr. George Mukhari Academic Hospital were analysed. Means (±SD) were presented for continuous variables, and frequencies (%) were presented for categorical variables. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

A total of 83 stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries managed with laparoscopy met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The Injury Severity Score ranged from 8 to 24, with a median of 18. The incidence of diaphragmatic injuries was 54%. Majority (46.8%) of patients had Grade 3 (2–10 cm defect) diaphragmatic injury. Associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring intervention were encountered in 28 (62%) patients. At least 93.3% of the patients were treated exclusively with laparoscopy. The morbidity was encountered in 7 (16%) patients; the most common cause was a clotted haemothorax Clavien-Dindo III-b, but only 1 patient required a decortication. There was one non-procedure-related mortality.

Conclusions

A success rate of 93% in using laparoscopy exclusively was documented, with an overall 82% uneventful outcome. The positive outcomes found in this study when laparoscopy was used in stable patients with thoracoabdominal injuries support similar work done in other trauma centres. However, in addition, this study seem to suggest that the presence of peritonitis in stable patient is not a contra-indication to laparoscopy and thoracoscopy may be useful especially in right side diaphragmatic injury where the liver can preclude adequate visualization of the entire diaphragm and to thoroughly clean the chest cavity and prevent future complication such as residual clotted haemothorax.

Clinical relevance: The presence of peritonitis in stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injury is not a contra-indication to laparoscopy provided the operating surgeon has adequate laparoscopic skills.

Trauma and BMI Mortality

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Obesity has been recognized as an impactful comorbid condition. It has been demonstrated to be an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality following trauma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies and reviews have strongly suggested obesity to be associated with increased risk for post-injury morbidity and mortality. As obesity is associated with a pro-inflammatory state, it has been suggested to negatively affect the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and renal systems and the ability and manner in which an obese patient heals. As obesity continues to rise at alarming rates in the USA, this population of patients requires special consideration and continued research is underway to delineate relationships between obesity, trauma, and outcomes in an effort to improve overall care.

Damage control surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Damage control surgery (DCS) has become a lifesaving maneuver for critically injured patients when utilized in appropriate scenarios. Despite this reality, indications for initiating DCS remain debated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite discussion surrounding the appropriate indications for DCS, this series of fundamental principles includes a rapidly abbreviated operative intervention aimed at arresting ongoing hemorrhage and containing gastrointestinal contamination in a patient approaching physiologic exhaustion, which includes both vascular and nonvascular damage control techniques, in addition to management of the open abdomen. Patients are then returned to the operating theater for definitive reconstruction once their physiology has been stabilized within the ICU.

SUMMARY

DCS is lifesaving when applied in appropriate clinical scenarios involving critically injured patients. Overuse of this technique can lead to increased patient morbidity and cost however.

Penetrating nontorso trauma: the extremities

Similar to penetrating torso trauma, nontorso injuries have undergone a fascinating oscillation between invasive and noninvasive approaches. This article discusses an organized approach to the evaluation and initial treatment of penetrating extremity injuries based on regional anatomy and clinical examination. The approach is reliable, efficient and minimizes both delays in diagnosis and missed injuries. Outpatient follow- up is particularly important for patients with extremity injuries who are discharged home from the emergency department.