Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review

Duodenal trauma

Duodenal trauma represents a unique challenge to the surgeon due to its relative rarity, anatomic location, and often the difficulty in diagnosing and managing these injuries. Despite these challenges, significant advances have been made over the previous century, and mortality has fallen to as low as 17%. The CT scan is the primary modality for diagnosis in the blunt trauma patient, and thorough surgical exploration at laparotomy is the mainstay for penetrating injuries. Management is guided by the grade of injury, with low-grade hematomas managed by observation, intermediate grade injuries by primary repair, and high-grade injuries with a damage control surgery approach. While pyloric exclusion remains the most common technique to augment primary repair in intermediate and higher grade injuries, the utility of this procedure has come into question in current literature, and an overall ‘less-is-more’ surgical approach has been advocated in recent publications. Complications following duodenal trauma are common and include fistulae, duodenal obstruction, and infectious complications. However, the overall morbidity and mortality have improved with these injuries. Future investigation is needed to determine the optimal management approach for these challenging patients.

Damage control laparotomy in trauma

Limited role

Contemporary damage control surgery outcomes: 80 patients with severe abdominal injuries in the right upper quadrant analyzed

Background

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is a well-established surgical strategy in the management of the severely injured abdominal trauma patients. The selection of patients by intra-abdominal organs involvement for DCL remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the injury to the abdominal organs that causing severe metabolic failure, needing DCL.

Methods

Severely injured abdominal trauma patients with a complex pattern of injuries were reviewed over a 52-month period. They were divided into DCL and definitive repair (DR) group according to the operative strategy. Factors identifying patients who underwent a DCL were analyzed and evaluated.

Results

Twenty-five patients underwent a DCL, and 55 patients had DR. Two patients died before or during surgery. The number and severity of overall injuries were equally distributed in the two groups of patients. Patients who underwent a DCL presented more frequently hemodynamically unstable (p = 0.02), required more units of blood (p < 0.0001) and intubation to secure the airway (p < 0.0001). The onset of metabolic failure was more profound in these group of patients than DR group. The mean Basedeficit was − 7.0 and − 3.8, respectively, (p = 0.003). Abdominal vascular (p = 0.001) and major liver injuries (p = 0.006) were more frequently diagnosed in the DCL group. The mortality, complications (p < 0.0001), hospital (p < 0.0001), and ICU stay (p < 0.009) were also higher in patients with DCL.

Conclusion

In severely injured with an intricate pattern of injuries, 31% of the patients required a DCL with 92% survival rate. Severe metabolic failure following significant liver and abdominal vascular injuries dictates the need for a DCL and improves outcome in the current era.

High Mobility Group Box-1 Protein and Outcomes in Critically Ill Surgical Patients Requiring Open Abdominal Management

Background. Previous studies assessing various cytokines in the critically ill/injured have been uninformative in terms of translating to clinical care management. Animal abdominal sepsis work suggests that enhanced intraperitoneal (IP) clearance of Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMPs) improves outcome. Thus measuring the responses of DAMPs offers alternate potential insights and a representative DAMP, High Mobility Group Box-1 protein (HMGB-1), was considered. While IP biomediators are being recognized in critical illness/trauma, HMGB-1 behaviour has not been examined in open abdomen (OA) management. Methods. A modified protocol for HMGB-1 detection was used to examine plasma/IP fluid samples from 44 critically ill/injured OA patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing two negative pressure peritoneal therapies (NPPT): Active NPPT (ANPPT) and Barker's Vacuum Pack NPPT (BVP). Samples were collected and analyzed at the time of laparotomy and at 24 and 48 hours after. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in survivor versus nonsurvivor HMGB-1 plasma or IP concentrations at baseline, 24 hours, or 48 hours. However, plasma HMGB-1 levels tended to increase continuously in the BVP cohort. Conclusions. HMGB-1 appeared to behave differently between NPPT cohorts. Further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship of HMGB-1 and outcomes in septic/injured patients.

Increased pressure within the abdominal compartment: intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews recent developments related to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH)/abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and clinical practice guidelines published in 2013.

RECENT FINDINGS

IAH/ACS often develops because of the acute intestinal distress syndrome. Although the incidence of postinjury ACS is decreasing, IAH remains common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality among critically ill/injured patients. Many risk factors for IAH include those findings suggested to be indications for use of damage control surgery in trauma patients. Medical management strategies for IAH/ACS include sedation/analgesia, neuromuscular blocking and prokinetic agents, enteral decompression tubes, interventions that decrease fluid balance, and percutaneous catheter drainage. IAH/ACS may be prevented in patients undergoing laparotomy by leaving the abdomen open where appropriate. If ACS cannot be prevented with medical or surgical management strategies or treated with percutaneous catheter drainage, guidelines recommend urgent decompressive laparotomy. Use of negative pressure peritoneal therapy for temporary closure of the open abdomen may improve the systemic inflammatory response and patient-important outcomes.

SUMMARY

In the last 15 years, investigators have better clarified the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and appropriate prevention of IAH/ACS. Subsequent study should be aimed at understanding which treatments effectively lower intra-abdominal pressure and whether these treatments ultimately affect patient-important outcomes.

Impact of urgent resuscitative surgery for life-threatening torso trauma

Purpose

This study investigated the advantages of performing urgent resuscitative surgery (URS) in the emergency department (ED); namely, our URS policy, to avoid a delay in hemorrhage control for patients with severe torso trauma and unstable vital signs.

Methods

We divided 264 eligible cases into a URS group (n = 97) and a non-URS group (n = 167) to compare, retrospectively, the observed survival rate with the predicted survival using the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS).

Results

While the revised trauma score and the injury severity score were significantly lower in the URS group than in the non-URS group, the observed survival rate was significantly higher than the predicted rate in the URS (48.5 vs. 40.2%; p = 0.038). URS group patients with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg and a Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score of ≥9 had significantly higher observed survival rates than predicted survival rates (0.433 vs. 0.309, p = 0.008), (0.795 vs. 0.681, p = 0.004). The implementation of damage control surgery (DCS) was found to be a significant predictor of survival (OR 5.23, 95% CI 0.113–0.526, p < 0.010).

Conclusion

The best indications for the URS policy are an SBP <90 mmHg, a GCS ≥9 on ED arrival, and/or the need for DCS. By implementing our URS policy, satisfactory survival of patients requiring immediate hemostatic surgery was achieved.

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.

Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Civilian Trauma Patients: A Content Analysis and Expert Appropriateness Rating Study

OBJECTIVES

To characterize and evaluate indications for use of damage control (DC) surgery in civilian trauma patients.

BACKGROUND

Although DC surgery may improve survival in select, severely injured patients, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity, suggesting that it should be used only when appropriately indicated.

METHODS

Two investigators used an abbreviated grounded theory method to synthesize indications for DC surgery reported in peer-reviewed articles between 1983 and 2014 into a reduced number of named, content-characteristic codes representing unique indications. An international panel of trauma surgery experts (n = 9) then rated the appropriateness (expected benefit-to-harm ratio) of the coded indications for use in surgical practice.

RESULTS

The 1107 indications identified in the literature were synthesized into 123 unique pre- (n = 36) and intraoperative (n = 87) indications. The panel assessed 101 (82.1%) of these indications to be appropriate. The indications most commonly reported and assessed to be appropriate included pre- and intraoperative hypothermia (median temperature <34°C), acidosis (median pH <7.2), and/or coagulopathy. Others included 5 different injury patterns, inability to control bleeding by conventional methods, administration of a large volume of packed red blood cells (median >10 units), inability to close the abdominal wall without tension, development of abdominal compartment syndrome during attempted abdominal wall closure, and need to reassess extent of bowel viability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a comprehensive list of candidate indications for use of DC surgery. These indications provide a practical foundation to guide surgical practice while studies are conducted to evaluate their impact on patient care and outcomes.

Opinions of Practicing Surgeons on the Appropriateness of Published Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Trauma Patients: An International Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Variation in use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may be partially driven by surgeon uncertainty as to when it is appropriately indicated. We sought to determine opinions of practicing surgeons on the appropriateness of published indications for trauma DC surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We asked 384 trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to nominate 1 to 3 surgeons at their center to participate in a survey about DC surgery. We then asked nominated surgeons their opinions on the appropriateness (benefit-to-harm ratio) of 43 literature-derived indications for use of DC surgery in adult civilian trauma patients.

RESULTS

In total, 232 (64.8%) trauma centers nominated 366 surgeons, of whom 201 (56.0%) responded. Respondents rated 15 (78.9%) preoperative and 23 (95.8%) intraoperative indications to be appropriate. Indications respondents agreed had the greatest expected benefit included a temperature <34°C, arterial pH <7.2, and laboratory-confirmed (international normalized ratio/prothrombin time and/or partial thromboplastin time >1.5 times normal) or clinically observed coagulopathy in the pre- or intraoperative setting; administration of >10 units of packed red blood cells; requirement for a resuscitative thoracotomy in the emergency department; and identification of a juxtahepatic venous injury or devascularized or destroyed pancreas, duodenum, or pancreaticoduodenal complex during operation. Ratings were consistent across subgroups of surgeons with different training, experience, and practice settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 38 indications that practicing surgeons agreed appropriately justified the use of DC surgery. Until further studies become available, these indications constitute a consensus opinion that can be used to guide practice in the current era of changing trauma resuscitation practices.

Anatomical, physiological, and logistical indications for the open abdomen: a proposal for a new classification system

Background

A systematic approach to the appropriate use of the open abdomen strategy has not been described. We propose three fundamental reasons for the use of this strategy, anatomical, physiological and logistical. Anatomical reasons pertain to the inability to bring the fascial edges together including soft tissue defects. Physiological reasons relate to features of systemic dysfunction. Logistical reasons involve any anticipated abdominal re-intervention while preserving fascia. These categories occur either as a single reason or in any combination.

Methods

A single-center prospective observational study of patients with open abdomens in trauma and acute abdomen. Surgeons were asked to select from the three reasons (single or any combination of) their motivation for using the open abdomen upon completion of the initial operation. Patients were compared using the non-parametric Wilcoxon two-sample test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables; Statistical significance set at P-value ≤ 0.05.

Results

Forty-five consecutive patients with open abdomens were evaluated (Jan. 1- Dec. 31, 2012). Mean age was 38.8 years, 32 were male, 39 (86.7 %) sustained trauma. The most common single reason for the open abdomen was physiological (24.4 %), 33 patients had multiple reasons, the most common combination being anatomical and physiological (22.2 %). A physiological reason was linked to: lower pH, higher lactate, and lower systolic blood pressure on admission (p < 0.05). A logistical reason was associated with earlier primary fascial closure, intra-operative packing, and bowel left in discontinuity. Logistic regression and adjusted odds ratio of primary fascial closure was: physiological (0.08, 95 % CI, 0.01–0.92, p = 0.043); logistical (6.03, 95 % CI, 1.13–32.29, p = 0.036); and anatomical (0.83, 95 % CI, 0.16–4.18, p = 0.816).

Conclusion

We defined three basic indications for the use of the open abdomen, anatomical physiological and logistical. These indications establish a practical and comprehensive terminology that could help to promote appropriate use of the open abdomen.

Indications for use of thoracic, abdominal, pelvic, and vascular damage control interventions in trauma patients: A content analysis and expert appropriateness rating study

BACKGROUND

The use of abbreviated or damage control (DC) interventions may improve outcomes in severely injured patients when appropriately indicated. We sought to determine which indications for DC interventions have been most commonly reported in the peer-reviewed literature to date and evaluate the opinions of experts regarding the appropriateness (expected benefit-to-harm ratio) of the reported indications for use in practice.

METHODS

Two investigators used an abbreviated grounded theory method to synthesize indications for 16 different DC interventions reported in peer-reviewed articles between 1983 and 2014 into a reduced number of named, content-characteristic codes representing unique indications. For each indication code, an international panel of trauma surgery experts (n = 9) then rated the appropriateness of conducting the DC intervention of interest in an adult civilian trauma patient.

RESULTS

The 424 indications identified in the literature were synthesized into 101 unique indications. The panel assessed 12 (70.6%) of the coded indications for the 7 different thoracic, 47 (78.3%) for the 7 different abdominal/pelvic, and 18 (75.0%) for the 2 different vascular interventions to be appropriate for use in practice. These included indications for rapid lung-sparing surgery (pneumonorrhaphy, pulmonary tractotomy, and pulmonary wedge resection) (n = 1); pulmonary tractotomy (n = 3); rapid, simultaneously stapled pneumonectomy (n = 1); therapeutic mediastinal and/or pleural space packing (n = 4); temporary thoracic closure (n = 3); therapeutic perihepatic packing (n = 28); staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 2); temporary abdominal closure (n = 12); extraperitoneal pelvic packing (n = 5); balloon catheter tamponade (n = 6); and temporary intravascular shunting (n = 11).

CONCLUSION

This study identified a list of candidate appropriate indications for use of 12 different DC interventions that were suggested by authors of peer-reviewed articles and assessed by a panel of independent experts to be appropriate. These indications may be used to focus future research and (in the interim) guide surgical practice while studies are conducted to evaluate their impact on patient outcomes.