To the point: Utility of laparoscopy for operative management of stabbing abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Algorithms for managing penetrating abdominal trauma are conflicting or vague regarding the role of laparoscopy. We hypothesized that laparoscopy is underutilized among hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal stab wounds.

METHODS

Trauma Quality Improvement Program data (2016-2019) were used to identify stable (SBP ≥110 and GCS ≥13) patients ≥16yrs with stab wounds and an abdominal procedure within 24hr of admission. Patients with a non-abdominal AIS ≥3 or missing outcome information were excluded. Patients were analyzed based on index procedure approach: open, therapeutic laparoscopy (LAP), or LAP-conversion to open (LCO). Center, clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared according to surgical approach and abdominal AIS using non-parametric analysis.

RESULTS

5984 patients met inclusion criteria with 7 ​% and 8 ​% receiving therapeutic LAP and LCO, respectively. The conversion rate for patients initially treated with LAP was 54 ​%. Compared to conversion or open, therapeutic LAP patients had better outcomes including shorter ICU and hospital stays and less infection complications, but were younger and less injured. Assessing by abdominal AIS eliminated ISS differences, meanwhile LAP patients still had shorter hospital stays. At time of admission, 45 ​% of open patients met criteria for initial LAP opportunity as indicated by comparable clinical presentation as therapeutic laparoscopy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In hemodynamically stable patients, laparoscopy remains infrequently utilized despite its increasing inclusion in current guidelines. Additional opportunity exists for therapeutic laparoscopy in trauma, which appears to be a viable alternative to open surgery for select injuries from abdominal stab wounds.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Pediatric emergency resuscitative thoracotomy: A Western Trauma Association, Pediatric Trauma Society, and Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma collaborative critical decisions algorithm

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Literature synthesis and expert opinion, Level V.

Evaluation and management of traumatic pneumothorax: A Western Trauma Association critical decisions algorithm

ABSTRACT

This is a recommended algorithm of the Western Trauma Association for the management of a traumatic pneumothorax. The current algorithm and recommendations are based on available published prospective cohort, observational, and retrospective studies and the expert opinion of the Western Trauma Association members. The algorithm and accompanying text represents a safe and reasonable approach to this common problem. We recognize that there may be variability in decision making, local resources, institutional consensus, and patient-specific factors that may require deviation from the algorithm presented. This annotated algorithm is meant to serve as a basis from which protocols at individual institutions can be developed or serve as a quick bedside reference for clinicians.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Consensus algorithm from the Western Trauma Association, Level V.

Abstract P2-11-15: Development of a web-based survey tool to assess change in breast cancer (BrCa) survivor knowledge after receipt of cancer treatment summary and survivorship care plan (SCP)

Intro: The Institute of Medicine advocates survivorship care plans (SCPs) as tools to improve coordination of care by improving survivor knowledge of follow-up recommendations and future risks. No evidence exists to demonstrate that SCPs impact survivor knowledge of diagnosis, treatment, or future/chronic side effects. Furthermore, there is a lack of information on existing surveys and their ability to assess survivor knowledge regarding these issues, without change over time. The purpose of this research is to report on the development of a survey assessing knowledge of diagnosis, treatment, and side effects in BrCa survivors.

Methods: Using existing literature, two oncologists created 24 questions addressing knowledge of diagnosis, treatment, and side effects. Content experts including breast oncology providers (representing multiple subspecialties), Survey Research Shared Service (SRSS) and patient advocates reviewed and revised the questions. Next, potential questions were administered in a group setting to BrCa survivors to evaluate clarity of instructions and survey wording. The Breast Cancer Knowledge (BreaCK) survey was further revised based on survivor feedback.

For pilot testing, BrCa survivors were recruited from clinic to test BreaCK survey content and clarity. Survey 1 was administered in clinic online. SRSS conducted verbal assessments regarding content after Survey 1. Four weeks later, survivors received Survey 2 via email and answered online. Correct answers were abstracted from the medical record.

Results: Nine subjects completed both surveys. Qualitatively, little intra-subject variation was seen between surveys. Subjects did not feel that the survey was burdensome or intrusive. No subject was able to correctly answer all questions. Final survey adjustments were made based on subject feedback and common incorrect answers encountered when grading the surveys. Specifically, subjects had difficulty understanding “endocrine or hormone therapy.” Furthermore, subjects reported guessing in response to some questions – additional answer categories were added, including “I don't know.”

Conclusion: Survivor knowledge did not change significantly between surveys. This suggests survivor knowledge was not impacted by the survey over the four-week interval. The revised BreaCK survey may be a useful tool for assessing survivor knowledge of diagnosis, treatment and side effects. A larger cohort of BrCa survivors is being recruited, starting Summer 2012, and will be evaluated using the survey.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-11-15.