Surgical management and outcome of civilian gunshot injuries to the pancreas

Surgical management of high-grade pancreatic injuries: Insights from a high-volume pancreaticobiliary specialty unit

BACKGROUND

The management of high-grade pancreatic trauma is controversial.

AIM

To review our single-institution experience on the surgical management of blunt and penetrating pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

A retrospective review of records was performed on all patients undergoing surgical intervention for high-grade pancreatic injuries [American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Grade III or greater] at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney between January 2001 and December 2022. Morbidity and mortality outcomes were reviewed, and major diagnostic and operative challenges were identified.

RESULTS

Over a twenty-year period, 14 patients underwent pancreatic resection for high-grade injuries. Seven patients sustained AAST Grade III injuries and 7 were classified as Grades IV or V. Nine underwent distal pancreatectomy and 5 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Overall, there was a predominance of blunt aetiologies (11/14). Concomitant intra-abdominal injuries were observed in 11 patients and traumatic haemorrhage in 6 patients. Three patients developed clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas and there was one in-hospital mortality secondary to multi-organ failure. Among stable presentations, pancreatic ductal injuries were missed in two-thirds of cases (7/12) on initial computed tomography imaging and subsequently diagnosed on repeat imaging or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. All patients who sustained complex pancreaticoduodenal trauma underwent PD without mortality. The management of pancreatic trauma is evolving. Our experience provides valuable and locally relevant insights into future management strategies.

CONCLUSION

We advocate that high-grade pancreatic trauma should be managed in high-volume hepato-pancreato-biliary specialty surgical units. Pancreatic resections including PD may be indicated and safely performed with appropriate specialist surgical, gastroenterology, and interventional radiology support in tertiary centres.

Indications for the surgical management of pancreatic trauma: An update

Pancreatic trauma is rare compared to other abdominal solid organ injuries, accounting for 0.2%-0.3% of all trauma patients. Moreover, this type of injury may frequently be overlooked or not readily appreciated on initial clinical examinations and investigations. The organ injury scale determines the severity of the trauma. Nonetheless, there are conflicting recommendations for the best strategy in severe cases. Overall, conservative management of induced severe traumatic pancreatitis is adequate. Modern imaging modalities such as ultrasound scanning and computed tomography scanning can detect injuries in fewer than 60% of patients. However, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have diagnostic accuracies approaching 90%-100%. Thus, management options include ERCP and stent placement or distal pancreatectomy in cases of complete gland transection and wide drainage only for damage control surgery, which can prevent mortality but increases the risk of morbidity. In the majority of cases, surgical intervention is not required and should be reserved for only severe grade III to grade V injuries.

Management of Traumatic Pancreatic Injuries: Evaluation of 7 Years of Experience at a Single Regional Trauma Center

Purpose Traumatic pancreatic injuries are rare, but their diagnosis and management are challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate and report our experiences with the management of pancreatic injuries. Methods We identified all adult patients (age >15) with pancreatic injuries from our trauma registry over a 7-year period. Data related to patients’ demographics, diagnoses, operative information, complications, and hospital course were abstracted from the registry and medical records. Results A total of 45 patients were evaluated. Most patients had blunt trauma (89%) and 21 patients (47%) had pancreatic injuries of grade 3 or higher. Twenty-eight patients (62%) underwent laparotomy and 17 (38%) received nonoperative management (NOM). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 24% (n=11), and only one patient died after NOM (due to a severe traumatic brain injury). Twenty-two patients (79%) underwent emergency laparotomy and six (21%) underwent delayed laparotomy. A drainage procedure was performed in 12 patients (43%), and pancreatectomy was performed in 16 patients (57%) (distal pancreatectomy [DP], n=8; DP with spleen preservation, n=5; pancreaticoduodenectomy, n=2; total pancreatectomy, n=1). Fourteen (31%) pancreas-specific complications occurred, and all complications were successfully managed without surgery. Solid organ injuries (n=14) were the most common type of associated abdominal injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3). Conclusions For traumatic pancreatic injuries, an appropriate treatment method should be considered after evaluation of the accompanying injury and the patient’s hemodynamic status. NOM can be performed without mortality in appropriately selected cases.

Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes).

METHODS

We searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions.

RESULTS

Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

Clinical course and pancreas parenchyma sparing surgical treatment of severe pancreatic trauma

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic trauma (PT) involving the main pancreatic duct is rare, but represents a challenging clinical problem with relevant morbidity and mortality. It is generally classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) and often presents as concomitant injury in blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma. Diagnosis may be delayed because of a lack of clinical or radiological manifestation. Treatment options for main pancreatic duct injuries comprise highly complex surgical procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 12 patients who underwent surgery in two tertiary centers in Germany during 2003-2016 for grade III-V PT with affection of the main pancreatic duct, according to the AAST classification.

RESULTS

The median age was 23 (range: 7-44) years. In nine patients blunt abdominal trauma was the reason for PT, whereas penetrating trauma only occurred in three patients. MRI outperformed classical trauma CT imaging with regard to detection of duct involvement. Complex procedures as i.e. an emergency pancreatic head resection, distal pancreatectomy or parenchyma sparing pancreatogastrostomy were performed. Compared to elective pancreatic surgery the complication rate in the emergency setting was higher. Yet, parenchyma-sparing procedures demonstrated safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Often extension of diagnostics including MRI and/or ERP at an early stage is necessary to guide clinical decision-making. If, due to main duct injuries, surgical therapy for PT is required, we suggest consideration of an organ preservative pancreatogastrostomy in grade III/IV trauma of the pancreatic body or tail.

How to deploy a uniform and simplified acute-phase management strategy for traumatic pancreatic injury in any situation

Aim

Management of traumatic pancreatic injury is challenging, and mortality and morbidity remain high. Because pancreatic injury is uncommon and strong recommendations for pancreatic injury management are lacking, management is primarily based on institutional practices. We propose our strategy of pancreatic injury management.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients with pancreatic injury and evaluated our strategy and outcomes.

Results

From January 2013 to December 2019, 18 patients were included with traumatic pancreatic injury. The median Injury Severity Score was 22 (25–75% interquartile range, 17–34) and probability of survival was 0.87 (25–75% interquartile range, 0.78–0.93). Patients were grouped according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma injury grades: grade I, n = 3 (16.7%); II, n = 6 (33.3%); III, n = 7 (38.9%); and IV, n = 2 (11.1%). All patients underwent endoscopic pancreatic ductal evaluation within 1–2 days after admission. Abbreviated surgery because of hemodynamic instability and subsequent open abdominal management were undertaken in one patient with pancreas head injury and two patients with pancreas body/tail injury. Management was by laparotomy for closed suction drain insertion with main ductal endoscopic drainage in six patients, endoscopic ductal drainage only in six patients, and distal pancreatectomy with closed suction drainage and endoscopic drainage in five patients. One patient with grade I injury underwent observation only. Median length of closed suction drainage was 12 days and that of hospital stay was 36 days. The observed mortality during the study period was 0%. Late formation of pseudo‐pancreatic cyst was observed in two patients (11.1%).

Conclusion

Our uniform, simplified strategy offers good outcomes for any pancreatic injury site and any concomitant injuries, even in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Pancreaticodudonectomy in trauma: One or two stages?

INTRODUCTION

Duodenopancreatic trauma is rare and presents high morbidity and mortality rates. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the only possible treatment indicated for the most complex injuries (grades IV and V). Although, it is commonly a one-stage procedure, damage control surgery corroborates with a two-stage PD performed on unstable trauma victims.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the mortality rate of one and two-stage PD in trauma patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search of PubMed, Elsevier, LILACS, Scielo, and Capes was conducted on all studies written in English, Portuguese and Spanish with no restriction to publication dates. Review articles, case reports, editorials, animal studies, pediatric and non-trauma scenarios were excluded.

RESULTS

We selected twenty-two publications, with a total of 149 duodenopancreatic trauma victims who underwent PD, with an overall mortality rate of 42 patients (28.2%). Two-stage PD was exclusively performed on unstable patients (N = 31) with a mortality rate of 38.7%. In a sample of 79 patients submitted to a one-stage PD, 38 patients (48.1%) were unstable with a mortality rate of 34.2%. One-stage PD for stable patients had a mortality rate of 14.6% DISCUSSION: Since 1983, hemodynamic state impacts on surgery methods and strategies for trauma patients. Prior to that, one stage PD was not restricted to stable patients.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in mortality rates when comparing two and one-stage PD in hemodynamic unstable patients, who had duodenopancreatic lesions (grades IV or V).

Epidemiological state, predictive model for mortality, and optimal management strategy for pancreatic injury: A multicentre nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data for establishing the optimal management modalities for pancreatic injury are lacking. Herein, we aimed to describe the epidemiology, identify mortality predictors, and determine the optimal management strategy for pancreatic injury.

METHODS

We identified patients with pancreatic injury between 2004 and 2017 recorded in the Japan Trauma Data Bank. The primary outcome was mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors significantly associated with mortality and to develop a predictive model. Patients were also classified according to the Organ Injury Scaling of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST grade I/II or III/IV). Outcomes were compared based on significant confounder-adjusted treatment strategy.

RESULTS

Overall, 743 (0.25%) patients had pancreatic injury. Traffic accident was the most common aetiology. The overall mortality rate was 17.5%, while it was 4.7% for isolated pancreatic injury. AAST grade, Revised Trauma Scale score on arrival, age, and coexistence of severe abdominal injury aside from pancreatic injury were independently associated with mortality. A predictive model for mortality comprising these four variables showed excellent performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.93). The in-hospital mortality was higher in patients who underwent celiotomy than in those who did not among those with AAST grade I/II (15.1% vs. 5.3%) and III/IV (13.8% vs. 12.3%). After adjusting for confounders, these differences were not significant with the adjusted odds ratios of 1.41 (95% CI, 0.55-3.60) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.17-1.67) for AAST grade I/II and III/IV, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

AAST grade, Revised Trauma Scale score on arrival, age, and coexistence of severe abdominal injury aside from pancreatic injury were prognostic factors of mortality after pancreatic injury. Confounder-adjusted analysis did not show that operative management was superior to non-operative management for survival. Non-operative management may be a reasonable strategy for select pancreatic injury patients, especially in institutions where expertise in interventional endoscopy is available.

Operative versus non-operative management of blunt pancreatic trauma: A systematic review

Introduction

Motor vehicle crashes are common causes of blunt abdominal trauma in the 21st century. While splenic trauma occurs very frequently and thus there is a well-established treatment paradigm, traumatic pancreatic injuries are relatively infrequent, occurring in only 3–5% of traumas. This low incidence means physicians have reduced experience with this condition and there is still ongoing debate with regards to the best practice in managing pancreatic trauma. During severe trauma, the pancreas can be injured as a consequence of blunt and penetrating injury. This has an estimated mortality rate ranging from 9 to 34%.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using three scientific databases: Embase, Medline and Cochrane and in-line with the PRISMA statement. We included only articles published in English, available as full text and describing only adults. Keywords included: pancrea*, trauma, blunt, operative management and non-operative management.

Results

Three studies were found that directly compared operative versus non-operative management in blunt pancreatic trauma. Length of stay, mortality and rate of re-intervention were lower in the non-operative group compared to the operative group. However, the average grade of pancreatic injury was lower in the non-operative group compared to the operative group.

Discussion

Our results revealed that patients who undergo non-operative management tend to have lower grade of injuries and patients with higher grade of injury tend to be managed in an operative fashion. This could be likely due to the fact that higher grade of pancreatic injuries is often accompanied by other injuries such as hollow viscus injury and therefore require operative intervention.

Conclusion

Non-operative management is a safe approach for low-grade blunt pancreatic trauma without ductal injuries. However, more evidence is required to improve our understanding and treatment plans. We suggest a large international multicentre study combining data from multiple international trauma centres to collect adequate data.

Clinical update on management of pancreatic trauma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic injury is rare and optimal diagnosis and management is still debated. The aim of this study was to review the existing data and consensus on management of pancreatic trauma.

METHODS

Systematic literature review until May 2018.

RESULTS

Pancreas injury is reported in 0.2-0.3% of all trauma patients. Severity is scored by the organ injury scale (OIS), with new scores including physiology needing validation. Diagnosis is difficult, clinical signs subtle, and imaging by ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) non-specific with <60% sensitivity for pancreatic duct injury. MRCP and ERCP have superior sensitivity (90-100%) for detecting ductal disruption. Early ERCP with stent is a feasible approach for initial management of all branch-duct and most main-duct injuries. Distal pancreatectomy (±splenectomy) may be required for a transected gland distal to the major vessels. Early peripancreatic fluid collections are common in ductal injuries and one-fifth may develop pseudocysts, of which two-thirds can be managed conservatively. Non-operative management has a high success rate (50-75%), even in high-grade injuries, but associated with morbidity. Mortality is related to associated injuries.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic injuries are rare and can often be managed non-operatively, supported by percutaneous drainage and ductal stenting. Distal pancreatectomy is the most common operative procedure.

Surgical Management and Outcomes of Combined Pancreaticoduodenal Injuries: Analysis of 75 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

Combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries (CPDI) are complex and result in significant morbidity and mortality. Survival in CPDI after initial damage-control laparotomy (DCL) and pancreaticoduodenectomy was evaluated in a large cohort treated in a Level I trauma center. We hypothesized that bivariate analyses would accurately identify factors influencing morbidity and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

The records from a prospective database of 453 consecutive patients treated for pancreatic injuries between January 1990 and April 2015 were reviewed to identify those with CPDI. Primary and secondary end points assessed were death and morbidity.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (69 men, median age 27 years, range 14 to 56 years) with CPDI, underwent 161 operations (range 1 to 9 operations). Twenty-nine patients with complex CPDI underwent a DCL and 46 had definitive treatment during the initial operation. Nineteen had a pancreaticoduodenectomy, either during the initial operation (n = 13) or after the DCL (n = 6). Postoperative complications occurred in 63 (84%) patients. Twenty-one (28%) patients died, including 15 (43%) of 35 patients with associated vascular injuries. Sixteen (84%) of the 19 patients who had a pancreaticoduodenectomy survived. Significantly more complications related to bleeding, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and hypovolemic shock occurred in those patients who eventually died and significantly more abdominal sepsis and fistulas occurred in patients who survived. Mortality was related to associated vascular injuries overall (p < 0.01), major visceral venous injuries (p < 0.011), and the combination of vascular plus the total number of associated organs injured (p < 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite using DCL in CPDIs, morbidity (84%) and mortality (28%) remain substantial. Careful selection of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy resulted in 84% survival. Associated vascular injuries, major visceral venous injuries, and combined vascular and associated organs injured influenced outcomes and mortality.

The impact of preoperative etiology on emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-traumatic patients

BACKGROUND

Emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy is a life-saving procedure in certain clinical scenarios when all the conservative treatment fails. The indications can be limited into perforation and bleeding. To clarify the impact of etiology on surgical outcomes of emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-trauma, we analyzed our patients and performed a literature review.

METHODS

We reviewed 931 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies performed at our institute between January 2001 and July 2015. Patients with emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-trauma etiologies were enrolled, whereas those who suffered from caustic injuries were excluded. The keywords "emergent/emergency" and "pancreaticoduodenectomy/pancreatoduodenectomy" were applied in a literature search. The universally available data for all the enrolled patients including etiology, surgical complications, outcomes, and hospital stays were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis for the contributing factors to surgical mortality were performed.

RESULTS

Six out of 931 (0.6%) registered pancreaticoduodenectomies matched our criteria of inclusion. The literature review obtained 4 series and 7 case reports, which when combined with our patients yielded a cohort of 31 emergent pancreaticoduodenectomies with 13 cases of perforation and 18 of bleeding. The rate of emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy for non-traumatic etiologies is similar between the present study and the other 3 series, ranging from 0.3 to 3%. The overall surgical complication rate was 83.9%. The rate of surgical mortality is significantly higher than in elective pancreaticoduodenectomy by propensity score matching with age and gender (19.4 versus 3.2%, P = 0.015). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression disclosed that etiology is the only preoperative risk factor for surgical mortality (perforation versus bleeding; odds ratio = 39.494, P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergent pancreaticoduodenectomy remains a rare operation. Surgical morbidity and mortality are higher than with elective pancreaticoduodenectomy among different reported series. By sorting the preoperative etiologies into two groups, perforation carries a higher risk of surgical mortality than bleeding.

Development and validation of a pancreatic injury mortality score (PIMS) based on 473 consecutive patients treated at a level 1 trauma center

BACKGROUND

This study sought to develop a pancreatic injury mortality score (PIMS) to identify patients at greatest risk of in-hospital mortality after a major pancreatic injury.

METHODS

The study used data from a prospective database of 473 patients treated for pancreatic injuries between January 1990 and December 2015. Two thirds of the patients were assigned to the derivation cohort and one third to the validation cohort. Clinical correlates of in-hospital death were identified and considered in stepwise logistic regression analyses that identified the factors included in the risk index.

RESULTS

Five variables, age >55, shock on admission, a vascular injury, number of associated injuries and American Association for the Study of Trauma (AAST) pancreatic injury scale correlated with in-hospital death and were used to calculate PIMS. The final score ROC in the derivation dataset was 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89) and in the validation dataset was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.97), which were comparable (p = 0.1). Finally, cut-off scores were used to generate three risk groups and the rate of mortality within the low (PIMS 0-4), medium (PIMS 5-9), and high risk (PIMS 10-20) groups were not significantly different. The scoring system was tested in a validation cohort and showed good calibration and discrimination for in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We have derived and validated the PIMS, a novel organ-specific risk prediction score calculated from five variables for in-hospital mortality following major pancreatic trauma. PIMS is simple, quick and easily understandable, increases clinical risk prediction for patients with complex pancreatic and can be used as a benchmark for survival.

Resection of complex pancreatic injuries: Benchmarking postoperative complications using the Accordion classification

AIM

To benchmark severity of complications using the Accordion Severity Grading System (ASGS) in patients undergoing operation for severe pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

A prospective institutional database of 461 patients with pancreatic injuries treated from 1990 to 2015 was reviewed. One hundred and thirty patients with AAST grade 3, 4 or 5 pancreatic injuries underwent resection (pancreatoduodenectomy, n = 20, distal pancreatectomy, n = 110), including 30 who had an initial damage control laparotomy (DCL) and later definitive surgery. AAST injury grades, type of pancreatic resection, need for DCL and incidence and ASGS severity of complications were assessed. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied.

RESULTS

Overall 238 complications occurred in 95 (73%) patients of which 73% were ASGS grades 3-6. Nineteen patients (14.6%) died. Patients more likely to have complications after pancreatic resection were older, had a revised trauma score (RTS) < 7.8, were shocked on admission, had grade 5 injuries of the head and neck of the pancreas with associated vascular and duodenal injuries, required a DCL, received a larger blood transfusion, had a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and repeat laparotomies. Applying univariate logistic regression analysis, mechanism of injury, RTS < 7.8, shock on admission, DCL, increasing AAST grade and type of pancreatic resection were significant variables for complications. Multivariate logistic regression analysis however showed that only age and type of pancreatic resection (PD) were significant.

CONCLUSION

This ASGS-based study benchmarked postoperative morbidity after pancreatic resection for trauma. The detailed outcome analysis provided may serve as a reference for future institutional comparisons.

Conservative and surgical management of pancreatic trauma in adult patients

BACKGROUND

The management of pancreatic trauma is complex. The aim of this study was to report our experience in the management of pancreatic trauma.

METHODS

All patients hospitalized between 2005 and 2013 for pancreatic trauma were included. Traumatic injuries of the pancreas were classified according to the American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) in five grades. Mortality and morbidity were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were analyzed (mean age: 38±17 years). Nineteen (63%) patients had a blunt trauma and 12 (40%) had pancreatic injury ≥ grade 3. Fifteen patients underwent exploratory laparotomy and the other 15 patients had nonoperative management (NOM). Four (13%) patients had a partial pancreatectomy [distal pancreatectomy (n=3) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (n=1)]. Overall, in hospital mortality was 20% (n=6). Postoperative mortality was 27% (n=4/15). Mortality of NOM group was 13% (n=2/15) in both cases death was due to severe head injury. Among the patients who underwent NOM, three patients had injury ≥ grade 3, one patient had a stent placement in the pancreatic duct and two patients underwent endoscopic drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative management of pancreatic trauma leads to a higher mortality. This must not be necessarily related to the pancreas injury alone but also to the associated injuries including liver, spleen and vascular trauma which may cause impaired outcome more than pancreas injury.

Pancreatoduodenectomy for trauma: applying novel reconstruction techniques

This single center study evaluated the technical modifications and outcome of reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy for trauma. Prospectively recorded data including reconstructive techniques used in patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for trauma were analyzed. Twenty patients underwent a PD. Six had an initial damage control procedure. Thirteen had a pylorus-preserving PD and 7 a standard Whipple resection because injury to the pylorus precluded a pylorus-preserving resection. Twelve patients had a pancreatojejunostomy and 8 a pancreatogastrostomy, 3 of whom had a duodenojejunal hepaticojejunal sequence of anastomoses to allow endoscopic biliary stent retrieval. Three patients died postoperatively of multi-organ failure. All 17 survivors had postoperative complications: 5 patients developed pancreatic fistula, 2 had gastric outlet obstruction, 2 had bile leaks, 2 had duodenal anastomotic leaks, all of which resolved with conservative treatment. Pancreatic and biliary reconstructions performed under adverse conditions after a trauma PD required a variety of technical modifications. The pylorus does not have to be sacrificed and posterior gastric implantation is a safe option for an edematous pancreas.

Management of pancreatic injuries during damage control surgery: an observational outcomes analysis of 79 patients treated at an academic Level 1 trauma centre

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated factors influencing mortality in a large cohort of patients who sustained pancreatic injuries and underwent DCS.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive patients with pancreatic injuries treated at a Level 1 academic trauma centre was reviewed to identify those who underwent DCS between 1995 and 2014.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (71 men, median age: 26 years, range 16-73 years, gunshot wounds = 62, blunt = 14, stab = 3) patients with pancreatic injuries (35 proximal, 44 distal) had DCS. Fifty-nine (74.7 %) patients had AAST grade 3, 4 or 5 pancreatic injuries. The 79 patients had a total of 327 associated injuries (mean: 3 per patient, range 0-6) and underwent a total of 187 (range 1-7) operations. Vascular injuries (60/327, 18.3 %) occurred in 41 patients. Twenty-seven (34.2 %) patients died without having a second operation. The remaining 52 patients had two or more laparotomies (range 2-7). Overall 28 (35 %) patients underwent a pancreatic resection either during DCS (n = 18) or subsequently as a secondary procedure (n = 10) including a Whipple (n = 6) when stable. Overall 43 (54.4 %) patients died. Mortality was related to associated vascular injuries overall (p < 0.01), major visceral venous injuries (p < 0.01) and combined vascular and total number of associated organs injured (p < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the magnitude of their combined injuries and the degree of physiological insult, DCS salvaged 45 % of critically injured patients who later underwent definitive pancreatic surgery. Mortality correlated with associated vascular injuries overall, major visceral venous injuries and the combination of vascular plus the total number of associated organs injured.

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

BACKGROUND

Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients.

RESULTS

Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study.

CONCLUSION

The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications.

Endoscopic and operative treatment of delayed complications after pancreatic trauma: An analysis of 27 civilians treated in an academic Level 1 Trauma Centre

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic treatment of delayed local complications including pseudocysts and persistent pancreatic fistulae in a cohort of civilian patients who had previously sustained a pancreatic injury.

METHOD

A large institutional database was interrogated to identify patients who developed a delayed pancreatic complication among those with pancreatic injuries treated between January 1990 and December 2013. The degree of the pancreatic duct injury was graded using a new duct injury grading system and endoscopic therapeutic outcome assessed according to the grade of injury.

RESULTS

During the period under review, 432 consecutive patients were treated for pancreatic injuries of whom 27 (20 men, 7 women, median age 31, range 15-68 years) presented with delayed complications related to the initial pancreatic injury. Sixteen patients had non-resolving symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts, 10 had persistent pancreatic fistulae and 1 had a symptomatic duct stricture. Fourteen patients with grade 2a, 3a, 3b or 4c main pancreatic duct injuries were successfully treated endoscopically with either pancreatic duct stenting or pseudocyst drainage while 13 patients with grade 4a or 4b duct injuries who had complete duct division with a disconnected duct syndrome failed endoscopic management and required surgical intervention. The 27 patients underwent a total of 49 endoscopic procedures (47 elective, 2 emergency) of whom 4 developed complications related to the endoscopic treatment. All 4 resolved, 2 after urgent endoscopic re-intervention.

CONCLUSION

In this preliminary analysis the Cape Town pancreatic ductal injury grading classification showed a close correlation with outcome after endoscopic and operative intervention.

Prognostic factors, morbidity and mortality in pancreatic trauma: a critical appraisal of 432 consecutive patients treated at a Level 1 Trauma Centre

BACKGROUND

This large retrospective observational cohort study evaluated prognostic factors, 30-day morbidity and mortality and complications related to the pancreas in patients who had sustained pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

The records of 432 consecutive patients treated for pancreatic injuries at an urban Level 1 Trauma Centre in Cape Town between January 1982 and December 2012 were reviewed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and death. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess significant predictors of morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Overall mortality in 432 patients [394 men, median age 26, median RTS 7.8] was 15.7% and morbidity 66%. Bivariate logistic regression analysis showed that nine factors, age, RTS, presence of shock, need for a transfusion, volume of blood transfused, damage control surgery, AAST grade of pancreatic injury, an associated vascular injury and a repeat laparotomy were significant predictors of morbidity. In the final multivariate logistic regression analysis model however only two variables, AAST grade of pancreatic injury and a repeat laparotomy were significant predictors of morbidity. When factors associated with mortality were considered, logistic regression analysis found that 11 variables, age, RTS, the presence of shock, patients who required a major blood transfusion, the median number of units transfused, the need for a damage control laparotomy, AAST grade 3, 4, 5 pancreatic injuries, associated vascular injuries, the number of associated injuries, postoperative complications and days in ICU were significant. However in the final stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis model only five variables, age, shock, median number of units transfused and the presence of associated complications were significant factors associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity was 64% and AAST grade of pancreatic injury and a repeat laparotomy were significant predictors of morbidity. Overall mortality was 15.7%. Most deaths were due to associated injuries and were unrelated to the pancreatic injury. Five variables, age, shock, median number of units transfused and the presence of associated complications were significant factors associated with mortality. These data indicate that the magnitude of blood loss and haemorrhagic shock are primary determinants for survival and that urgent reversal of shock and control of bleeding are essential to reduce mortality in this cohort of patients.

Damage control laparotomy and delayed pancreatoduodenectomy for complex combined pancreatoduodenal and venous injuries

BACKGROUND

This single-centre study evaluated the efficacy of damage control surgery and delayed pancreatoduodenectomy and reconstruction in patients who had combined severe pancreatic head and visceral venous injuries.

METHODS

Prospectively recorded data of patients who underwent an initial damage control laparotomy and a subsequent pancreatoduodenectomy for severe pancreatic injuries were evaluated to assess optimal operative sequencing.

RESULTS

During the 20-year study period, 312 patients were treated for pancreatic injuries of whom 14 underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy. Six (five men, one woman, median age 20, range 16-39 years) of the 14 patients were in extremis with exsanguinating venous bleeding and non-reconstructable AAST grade 5 pancreatoduodenal injuries and underwent a damage control laparotomy followed by delayed pancreatoduodenectomy and reconstruction when stable. During the initial DCS, the blood loss compared to the subsequent laparotomy and definitive procedure was 5456 ml, range 2318-7665 vs 1250 ml, range 850-3600 ml (p < 0.01). The mean total fluid administered in the operating room was 11,150 ml, range 8450-13,320 vs 6850 ml, range 3350-9020 ml (p < 0.01). The mean operating room time was 113 min, range 90-140 vs 335 min, range 260-395 min (p < 0.01). During the second laparotomy five patients had a pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy and one a standard Whipple resection. Four of the six patients survived. Two patients died in hospital, one of MOF and coagulopathy and the other of intra-abdominal sepsis and multi-organ failure. Median duration of intensive care was 6 days, (range 1-20 days) and median duration of hospital stay was 29 days, (range 1-94 days).

CONCLUSION

Damage control laparotomy and delayed secondary pancreatoduodenectomy is a live-saving procedure in the small cohort of patients who have dire pancreatic and vascular injuries. When used appropriately, the staged resection and reconstruction allows survival in a previously unsalvageable group of patients who have severe physiological derangement.

The epidemiology of and outcome from pancreatoduodenal trauma in the UK, 1989-2013

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatoduodenal (PD) injury is an uncommon but serious complication of blunt and penetrating trauma, associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, mechanisms of injury, initial operation rates and outcome of patients who sustained PD trauma in the UK from a large trauma registry, over the period 1989-2013.

METHODS

The Trauma Audit and Research Network database was searched for details of any patient with blunt or penetrating trauma to the pancreas, duodenum or both.

RESULTS

Of 356,534 trauma cases, 1,155 (0.32%) sustained PD trauma. The median patient age was 27 years for blunt trauma and 27.5 years for penetrating trauma. The male-to-female ratio was 2.5:1. Blunt trauma was the most common type of injury seen, with a ratio of blunt-to-penetrating PD injury ratio of 3.6:1. Road traffic collision was the most common mechanism of injury, accounting for 673 cases (58.3%). The median injury severity score (ISS) was 25 (IQR: 14-35) for blunt trauma and 14 (IQR: 9-18) for penetrating trauma. The mortality rate for blunt PD trauma was 17.6%; it was 12.2% for penetrating PD trauma. Variables predicting mortality after pancreatic trauma were increasing age, ISS, haemodynamic compromise and not having undergone an operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated pancreatic injuries are uncommon; most coexist with other injuries. In the UK, a high proportion of cases are due to blunt trauma, which differs from US and South African series. Mortality is high in the UK but comparison with other surgical series is difficult because of selection bias in their datasets.

Emergency pancreatoduodenectomy for complex injuries of the pancreas and duodenum

BACKGROUND

This single-centre study evaluated the outcome of a pancreatoduodenectomy for Grade 5 injuries of the pancreas and duodenum.

METHODS

Prospectively recorded data of patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy for trauma at a Level I Trauma Centre during a 22-year period were analysed.

RESULTS

Nineteen (17 men and 2 women, median age 28 years, range 14-53 years) out of 426 patients with pancreatic injuries underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy (gunshot n = 12, blunt trauma n = 6 and stab wound n = 1). Nine patients had associated inferior vena cava (IVC) or portal vein (PV) injuries. Five patients had initial damage control procedures and underwent a definitive operation at a median of 15 h (range 11-92) later. Twelve had a pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy (PPPD) and 7 a standard Whipple. Three patients with APACHE II scores of 15, 18, 18 died post-operatively of multi-organ failure. All 16 survivors had Dindo-Clavien grade I (n = 1), grade II (n = 7), grade IIIa (n = 2), grade IVa (n = 6) post-operative complications. Factors complicating surgery were shock on admission, number of associated injuries, coagulopathy, hypothermia, gross bowel oedema and traumatic pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

A pancreatoduodenectomy is a life-saving procedure in a small cohort of stable patients with non-reconstructable pancreatic head injuries. Damage control before a pancreatoduodenectomy will salvage a proportion of the most severely injured patients who have multiple injuries.

An analysis of predictors of morbidity after stab wounds of the pancreas in 78 consecutive injuries

INTRODUCTION

Penetrating injuries of the pancreas may result in serious complications. This study assessed the factors influencing morbidity after stab wounds of the pancreas.

METHODS

A retrospective univariate cohort analysis was carried out of 78 patients (74 men) with a median age of 26 years (range: 16-62 years) with stab wounds of the pancreas between 1982 and 2011.

RESULTS

The median revised trauma score (RTS) was 7.8 (range: 2.0-7.8). Injuries involved the body (n=36), tail (n=24), head/uncinate process (n=16) and neck (n=2) of the pancreas. All 78 patients underwent a laparotomy. Sixty-five patients had AAST (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma) grade I or II pancreatic injuries and thirteen had grade III, IV or V injuries. Eight patients (10.3%) had an initial damage control operation. Sixty-nine patients (84.6%) had drainage of the pancreas only, six had a distal pancreatectomy and one had a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Most pancreas related complications occurred in patients with AAST grade III injuries; eight patients (10.2%) developed a pancreatic fistula. Four patients (5.1%) died. Grade of pancreatic injury (AAST grade I-II vs grade III-V injuries, p<0.001), RTS (odds ratio [OR]: 5.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-17.19, p<0.007), presence of shock on admission (OR: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.16-9.42, p=0.022), need for a blood transfusion (OR: 6.46, 95% CI: 2.40-17.40, p<0.001) and repeat laparotomy (p<0.001) had a significant influence on the development of general complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although mortality was low after a pancreatic stab wound, morbidity was high. Increasing AAST grade of injury, high RTS, shock on admission to hospital, need for blood transfusion and repeat laparotomy were significant factors related to morbidity.

Morbidity and mortality after distal pancreatectomy for trauma: a critical appraisal of 107 consecutive patients undergoing resection at a Level 1 Trauma Centre

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated 30-day morbidity and mortality and assessed pancreas-specific complications in patients with major pancreatic injuries who underwent a distal pancreatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Records of 107 consecutive patients who underwent a distal pancreatectomy at a Level 1 Trauma Centre in Cape Town between January 1982 and December 2011 were reviewed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and death. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo severity classification and the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definitions.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients [94 men, median age 26, median RTS 7.8, 69 penetrating injuries (63 gunshot wounds, 6 stabs wounds), 38 blunt injuries] underwent distal pancreatectomy. Overall mortality was 12%, 16% for gunshot injuries, 8% for blunt trauma and 0% in patients who had stab wounds. Eighty patients had a post-operative complication. A pancreatic leak (n=26) was the most common pancreatic related complication. Median postoperative stay in 28 patients with no or grade I complications was 9 days; in 11 patients with grade II complications was 18 days; in 14 grade IIIa, 31 days; in 19 grade IIIb, 38 days; in 8 grade IVa, 33 days in 14 grade IVb, and in 13 grade V the duration of postoperative stay was 14±39.4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall mortality for distal pancreatectomy was 12%. Pancreatic leak was a common cause of morbidity. Length of hospitalisation increased with increasing Clavien-Dindo severity grading. There was a significant difference in the duration of hospitalisation in patients with no or grade I complications compared to those with grade II-IV injuries (p<0.05).

Pancreatic trauma

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic trauma occurs in approximately 4% of all patients sustaining abdominal injuries. The pancreas has an intimate relationship with the major upper abdominal vessels, and there is significant morbidity and mortality associated with severe pancreatic injury. Immediate resuscitation and investigations are essential to delineate the nature of the injury, and to plan further management. If main pancreatic duct injuries are identified, specialised input from a tertiary hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) team is advised.

METHODS

A comprehensive online literature search was performed using PubMed. Relevant articles from international journals were selected. The search terms used were: 'pancreatic trauma', 'pancreatic duct injury', 'radiology AND pancreas injury', 'diagnosis of pancreatic trauma', and 'management AND surgery'. Articles that were not published in English were excluded. All articles used were selected on relevance to this review and read by both authors.

RESULTS

Pancreatic trauma is rare and associated with injury to other upper abdominal viscera. Patients present with non-specific abdominal findings and serum amylase is of little use in diagnosis. Computed tomography is effective in diagnosing pancreatic injury but not duct disruption, which is most easily seen on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography or operative pancreatography. If pancreatic injury is suspected, inspection of the entire pancreas and duodenum is required to ensure full evaluation at laparotomy. The operative management of pancreatic injury depends on the grade of injury found at laparotomy. The most important prognostic factor is main duct disruption and, if found, reconstructive options should be determined by an experienced HPB surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of pancreatic trauma requires a high index of suspicion and detailed imaging studies. Grading pancreatic injury is important to guide operative management. The most important prognostic factor is pancreatic duct disruption and in these cases, experienced HPB surgeons should be involved. Complications following pancreatic trauma are common and the majority can be managed without further surgery.