Routine repeat head CT may not be necessary for patients with mild TBI.

Background:Routine repeat cranial CT (RHCT) is standard of care for CT-verified traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite mixed evidence, those with mild TBI are subject to radiation and expense from serial CT scans. Thus, we investigated the necessity and utility of RHCT for patients with mild TBI. We hypothesized that repeat head CT in these patients would not alter patient care or outcomes. Methods:We retrospectively studied patients suffering from mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 13-15) and treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center from November 2014 through January 2015. The primary outcome was the need for surgical intervention. Outcomes were compared using paired Student's t-test, and stratified by injury on initial CT, GCS change, demographics, and presenting vital signs (mean ± SD). Results:Eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria with an average initial GCS score=14.6±0.57. Our center sees about 2800 patients with TBI per year, or about 230 per month. This includes patients with concussions. This sample represents about 30% of patients with TBI seen during the study period. Ten patients required operation (four based on initial CT and others for worsening GCS, headaches, large unresolving injury). There was progression of injury on repeat CT scan in only two patients that required operation, and this accompanied clinical deterioration. The mean brain Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score was 4.8±0.3 for surgical patients on initial CT scan compared with 3.4±0.6 (P<0.001) for non-surgical patients. Initial CT subdural hematoma size was 1.1±0.6 cm for surgical patients compared with 0.49±0.3 cm (P=0.05) for non-surgical patients. There was no significant difference between intervention groups in terms of other intracranial injuries, demographics, vital signs, or change in GCS. Overall, 75 patients that did not require surgical intervention received RHCT. At $340 per CT,$51 000 was spent on unnecessary imaging ($367 000/year, extrapolated). Discussion:In an environment of increased scrutiny on healthcare expenditures, it is necessary to question dogma and eliminate unnecessary cost. Our data questions the use of routine repeat head CT scans in every patient with anatomic TBI and suggests that clinically stable patients with small injury can simply be followed clinically. Level of evidence:Level III

Mass casualty events: what to do as the dust settles?

Care during mass casualty events (MCE) has improved during the last 15 years. Military and civilian collaboration has led to partnerships which augment the response to MCE. Much has been written about strategies to deliver care during an MCE, but there is little about how to transition back to normal operations after an event. A panel discussion entitled The Day(s) After: Lessons Learned from Trauma Team Management in the Aftermath of an Unexpected Mass Casualty Event at the 76th Annual American Association for the Surgery of Trauma meeting on September 13, 2017 brought together a cadre of military and civilian surgeons with experience in MCEs. The events described were the First Battle of Mogadishu (1993), the Second Battle of Fallujah (2004), the Bagram Detention Center Rocket Attack (2014), the Boston Marathon Bombing (2013), the Asiana Flight 214 Plane Crash (2013), the Baltimore Riots (2015), and the Orlando Pulse Night Club Shooting (2016). This article focuses on the lessons learned from military and civilian surgeons in the days after MCEs

Hemostatic resuscitation for acute traumatic coagulopathy

Trauma resuscitation paradigms have changed considerably over the last twenty years. Originally, the goal was to normalize a blood pressure as quickly as possible. Large volume crystalloid resuscitation was used to accomplish this. Standard therapy was that any patient with suspected bleeding received a two liter crystalloid bolus as initial therapy. It was often repeated and blood transfusion therapy was used relatively late. Fresh frozen plasma and platelets were also used relatively late, often after patients had received ten units of red cells. Dilutional anemia was relatively common. Patients with large volume blood loss often died from what was termed, "the bloody vicious cycle," of hypothermia, acidosis and coagulopathy

Splenic Embolization Decreases Infectious Complications and Resource Utilization Compared to Splenectomy in Severely Injured Patients

Introduction. Increasing use of main coil angioembolization for splenic injury has raised concerns of increased complication rates and resource utilization compared to splenectomy. This study examined complication rates for severely injured patients undergoing splenectomy versus main coil angioembolization. Methods. Demographic data (age, sex, and race), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and splenic injury grade were collected prospectively on all patients admitted to the intensive care unit with blunt splenic injury treated with splenectomy or main coil angioembolization. Outcome measures (transfusion requirements, mechanical ventilation use and duration, mortality, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, infection rate, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS score) were reviewed daily. Results. Of 116 patients reviewed, 65 underwent splenectomy and 51 underwent main coil angioembolization. Groups were comparable for age, sex, race, and mechanism of injury. Splenectomized patients had a higher ISS (41 vs 31) and splenic injury grade (3.7 vs 3.2). The main coil angioembolization group had a lower transfusion requirement, hospital length of stay, incidence of mechanical ventilation, nosocomial infection rate, and SIRS score. Overall, mortality and ventilator days were lower but not statistically significant. Conclusions. Severely injured patients treated with splenectomy had significantly higher infection rates and resource utilization compared to those treated with main coil angioembolization

Systemic anticoagulation in the setting of vascular extremity trauma

Introduction There is conflicting data regarding if patients with vascular extremity trauma who undergo surgical treatment need to be systematically anticoagulated. We hypothesized that intraoperative systemic anticoagulation (ISA) decreased the risk of repair thrombosis or limb amputation after traumatic vascular injury of the extremities. Methods We analyzed a composite risk of repair thrombosis and/or limb amputation (RTLA) between patients who did and did not undergo ISA during arterial injury repair. Patient data was collected in the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma PROspective Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry. This registry contains demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcome data. Results Between February 2013 and August 2015, 193 patients with upper or lower extremity arterial injuries who underwent open operative repair were entered into the PROOVIT registry. The majority were male (87%) with a mean age of 32.6 years (range 4–91) and 74% injured by penetrating mechanism. 63% of the injuries were described as arterial transection and 37% had concomitant venous injury. 62% of patients underwent ISA. RTLA occurred in 22 patients (11%) overall, with no significant difference in these outcomes between patients who received ISA and those that did not (10% vs. 14%, p = 0.6). There was, however, significantly higher total blood product use noted among patients treated with ISA versus those that did not receive ISA (median 3 units vs. 1 unit, p = 0.002). Patients treated with ISA also stayed longer in the ICU (median 3 days vs. 1 day, p = 0.001) and hospital (median 9.5 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.01). Discussion In this multicenter prospective cohort, intraoperative systemic anticoagulation was not associated with a difference in rate of repair thrombosis or limb loss; but was associated with an increase in blood product requirements and prolonged hospital stay. Our data suggest there is no significant difference in outcome to support use of ISA for repair of traumatic arterial injuries

The Splenic Injury Outcomes Trial: An American Association For the Surgery of Trauma Multi-Institutional Study

BACKGROUND: Delayed splenic hemorrhage after nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injury (BSI) is a feared complication, particularly in the outpatient setting. Significant resources, including angiography (ANGIO), are used in an effort to prevent delayed splenectomy (DS). No prospective, long-term data exist to determine the actual risk of splenectomy. The purposes of this trial were to ascertain the 180-day risk of splenectomy after 24 hours of NOM of BSI and to determine factors related to splenectomy. METHODS: Eleven Level I trauma centers participated in this prospective observational study. Adult patients achieving 24 hours of NOM of their BSI were eligible. Patients were followed up for 180 days. Demographic, physiologic, radiographic, injury-related information, and spleen-related interventions were recorded. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to determine factors associated with DS. RESULTS: A total of 383 patients were enrolled. Twelve patients (3.1%) underwent in-hospital splenectomy between 24 hours and 9 days after injury. Of 366 discharged with a spleen, 1 (0.27%) required readmission for DS on postinjury Day 12. No Grade I injuries experienced DS. The splenectomy rate after 24 hours of NOM was 1.5 per 1,000 patient-days. Only extravasation from the spleen at time of admission (ADMIT-BLUSH) was associated with splenectomy (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–12.4). Of patients with ADMIT-BLUSH (n = 49), 17 (34.7%) did not have ANGIO with embolization (EMBO), and 2 of those (11.8%) underwent splenectomy; 32 (65.3%) underwent ANGIO with EMBO, and 2 of those (6.3%, p = 0.6020 compared with no ANGIO with EMBO) required splenectomy. CONCLUSION: Splenectomy after 24 hours of NOM is rare. After the initial 24 hours, no additional interventions are warranted for patients with Grade I injuries. For Grades II to V, close observation as an inpatient or outpatient is indicated for 10 days to 14 days. ADMIT-BLUSH is a strong predictor of DS and should lead to close observation or earlier surgical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiological study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV

Utility of esophageal gastroduodenoscopy at the time of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in trauma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The utility of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed at the time of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is unclear. We examined whether EGD at time of PEG yielded clinically useful information important in patient care. We also reviewed the outcome and complication rates of EGD-PEG performed by trauma surgeons.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective review of all trauma patients undergoing EGD with PEG at a level I trauma center from 1/01–6/03.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>210 patients underwent combined EGD with PEG by the trauma team. A total of 37% of patients had unsuspected upper gastrointestinal lesions seen on EGD. Of these, 35% had traumatic brain injury, 10% suffered multisystem injury, and 47% had spinal cord injury. These included 15 esophageal, 61 gastric, and six duodenal lesions, mucosal or hemorrhagic findings on EGD. This finding led to a change in therapy in 90% of patients; either resumption/continuation of H₂-blockers or conversion to proton-pump inhibitors. One patient suffered an upper gastrointestinal bleed while on H2-blocker. It was treated endoscopically. Complication rates were low. There were no iatrogenic visceral perforations seen. Three PEGs were inadvertently removed by the patient (1.5%); one was replaced with a Foley, one replaced endoscopically, and one patient underwent gastric repair and open jejunostomy tube. One PEG leak was repaired during exploration for unrelated hemorrhage. Six patients had significant site infections (3%); four treated with local drainage and antibiotics, one requiring operative debridement and later closure, and one with antibiotics alone.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>EGD at the time of PEG <b>may add </b>clinically useful data in the management of trauma patients. Only one patient treated with acid suppression therapy for EGD diagnosed lesions suffered delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Trauma surgeons can perform EGD and PEG with acceptable outcomes and complication rates.</p

Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in the Super-Morbidly Obese Patient

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is reaching epidemic proportions in the United States, and as patients at the extremes of morbid obesity come under the care of surgeons, routine procedures may become increasingly complex in the face of greater body mass. We prospectively evaluated the success rate of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in a group of morbidly obese patients outside the current classification systems used to stratify obesity. METHODS: Patients with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 60 kg/m2 who presented for PEG over a one year period were prospectively enrolled. Each patient underwent attempted PEG placement using the pull method by a single surgeon. Outcome variables included: successful PEG, wound infection, tube dislodgement, or bleeding. RESULTS: Six patients with BMI \u3e 60 kg/m2 presented for PEG. All patients were in a surgical critical care unit maintained on mechanical ventilation. All underwent successful PEG placement with standard techniques and sustained no post-procedural complications. CONCLUSION: In the hands of an experienced surgical endoscopist, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy can be safely performed in patients at the extremes of morbid obesity. Future studies are warranted to validate the results of our small series