Gunshot injuries of the head of the pancreas: conservative approach

Time to operating room matters in modern management of pancreatic injuries: A national review on the management of adult pancreatic injury at Canadian level 1 trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic injuries are rare, difficult to diagnose, and complex to manage despite multiple published guidelines. This study was undertaken to evaluate the current diagnosis and management of pancreatic trauma in Canadian trauma centers.

METHODS

This is a multi-institutional retrospective study from 2009 to 2014 including patients from eight level 1 trauma centers across Canada. All patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic trauma were included. Demographics, injury characteristics, vital signs on admission, and type of management were collected. Outcomes measured were mortality and pancreas-related morbidity.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-nine patients were included. The median age was 29 years (interquartile range, 21-43 years), 72% were male, and 79% sustained blunt trauma. Pancreatic injury included the following grades: I, 26%; II, 28%; III, 33%; IV, 9%; and V, 4%. The overall mortality rate was 11%, and the pancreas-related complication rate was 25%. The majority (88%) of injuries were diagnosed within 24 hours of injury, primarily (80%) with a computed tomography scan. The remaining injuries were diagnosed with ultrasound (6%) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) (2%) and at the time of laparotomy or autopsy (12%). One hundred seventy-five patients (63%) underwent an operative intervention, most commonly a distal pancreatectomy (44%); however, there was great variability in operative procedure chosen even when considering grade of injury.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic injuries are associated with multiple other injuries and have significant morbidity and mortality. Their management demonstrates significant practice variation within a national trauma system.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level V; Prognostic and epidemiological, level IV.

Surgical management of pancreatic trauma in Australia

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic trauma is rare and complex. Non-operative management of pancreatic injuries is often appropriate, and when surgical intervention is required there may be a choice between resectional or more conservative approaches. This is especially true for distal injuries. Operative management of proximal pancreatic injuries is extremely challenging and has less room for conservatism. We sought to characterize the surgical treatment of pancreatic injuries, comparing outcomes for those undergoing formal resection (FR) versus those undergoing more conservative surgical treatment. Our hypothesis was that 'biting the bullet' and resecting is not associated with worse outcomes than less invasive approaches.

METHODS

All patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic injuries between June 2001 and June 2019 at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne were included. Outcome measures including length of stay, return to theatre, total parenteral nutrition use, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal infection and mortality were compared between patients undergoing FR and those undergoing non-resectional procedures.

RESULTS

Of nearly 60 000 trauma presentations, 194 patients sustained pancreatic injury and 51 underwent surgical intervention. Over 70% were secondary to blunt trauma. There were 27 FR and 22 non-resectional procedures. No major outcome differences were detected. FR was not associated with worse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In distal injuries, where there is doubt regarding parenchymal viability or ductal integrity, FR can safely be performed with non-inferior outcomes to more conservative surgery. Patients with high-grade proximal injuries will usually have multiple other injuries and require resuscitation, temporization and staged reconstruction.

The gap in operative exposure in trauma surgery: quantifying the benefits of an international rotation

Background

International rotations with hands-on experience are commonly cited as a potential supplement to the current experience of surgical trainees in trauma; however, quantification of this experience remains unclear.

Methods

A link to an online survey was distributed by electronic mail to physicians who rotated for any period of time at the Trauma Unit of the Groote-Shuur Hospital of the University of Cape Town from January 1, 2006, to December 2016.

Results

Of 160 participants, 75 (47%) completed the survey. A high proportion (45%) had performed less than 25 trauma-related surgical procedures during their previous training. Most (56%) performed ≥ 10 trauma laparotomies and sternotomies/thoracotomies during their rotation, whereas 43% performed ≥ 5 vascular procedures. The level of perceived confidence in managing trauma patients increased significantly from a median of 3/10 to 7/10 (P < .05).

Conclusion

Rotations at large-volume trauma centers abroad offer the opportunity for a hands-on operative experience and may enhance the confidence of surgical trainees. Further standardization of these opportunities may result in a larger-scale participation of graduate residents and fellows.

•

This is a survey of physicians who participated in an international rotation at the Groote Schuur Hospital of the University of Cape Town.

•

With this survey, we found that most participants performed in excess of 10 trauma laparotomies and thoracotomies/sternotomies.

•

A large proportion performed 5 or more peripheral vascular procedures.

•

These findings are combined with a significantly increased confidence in managing trauma patients.

•

This report may serve in the planning of sponsored international rotations to increase the operative exposure in trauma surgery.

Pancreatic fistula and mortality after surgical management of pancreatic trauma: analysis of 81 consecutive patients during 11 years at a Korean trauma center

Purpose

Pancreatic trauma is infrequent because of its central, deep anatomical position. This contributes to a lack of surgeon experience and many debates exist about its standard care. This study aimed to investigate the postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and mortality of pancreatic trauma after operation.

Methods

We reviewed records in the trauma registry of our institution submitted from January 2006 to December 2016. The grade of pancreatic injury, surgical management, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical variables included in the analyses.

Results

Data from a total of 26,072 trauma patients admitted to the Emergency Department were analyzed. Pancreatic trauma was observed in 114 of these patients (0.44%). Laparotomy was performed in 81 patients (2 pan creatico duodenectomies, 2 pancreaticogastrostomies, peripancreatic drainage in 41 patients, distal pancreatectomies in 34 patients, and 9 patients who underwent surgery for damage control). The incidence of POPF was 38.3%. The overall mortality was 8.8% (7 of 81). In multivariate analysis, pancreas injury grade IV (≥4) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.071; P = 0.029) and preoperative peritonitis signs (AOR, 2.903; P = 0.039) were independent risk factors for POPF. All patients who died had also another major abdominal injury (≥grade 3). Multiorgan failure was a major cause of death (6 of 7, 85.7%). The mortality rate of isolated pancreas injury was 0%.

Conclusion

The pancreas injury grade and preoperative peritonitis were significant risk factors of POPF. The mortality rate of isolated pancreatic trauma was very low.

Management of adult pancreatic injuries: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury to the pancreas is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including fistula, sepsis, and death. There are currently no practice management guidelines for the medical and surgical management of traumatic pancreatic injuries. The overall objective of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the physician who is presented with traumatic injury to the pancreas.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database using PubMed was searched to identify English language articles published from January 1965 to December 2014 regarding adult patients with pancreatic injuries. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to formulate evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Three hundred nineteen articles were identified. Of these, 52 articles underwent full text review, and 37 were selected for guideline construction.

CONCLUSION

Patients with grade I/II injuries tend to have fewer complications; for these, we conditionally recommend nonoperative or nonresectional management. For grade III/IV injuries identified on computed tomography or at operation, we conditionally recommend pancreatic resection. We conditionally recommend against the routine use of octreotide for postoperative pancreatic fistula prophylaxis. No recommendations could be made regarding the following two topics: optimal surgical management of grade V injuries, and the need for routine splenectomy with distal pancreatectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

The management of pancreatic injuries

Pancreatic injuries are relatively uncommon, but considerable morbidity and mortality may result if associated vascular and duodenal injuries are present or if the extent of the injury is underestimated and appropriate intervention is delayed. Optimal management includes the need for early diagnosis and accurate definition of the site and extent of injury. Prognosis is influenced by the cause and complexity of the pancreatic injury, the amount of blood lost, duration of shock, the rapidity of resuscitation and the quality and appropriateness of surgical intervention. Early mortality results from uncontrolled or major bleeding due to associated injuries while late mortality is generally a consequence of infection or multiple organ failure. Initial management of pancreatic trauma is similar to that of any patient with a severe abdominal injury. Stable patients with a suspected pancreatic injury should have non-invasive imaging including a CT scan or MRI. Urgent laparotomy is required in patients with evidence of major intraperitoneal bleeding, associated visceral trauma, or peritonitis. Operative intervention is guided by the integrity of the main pancreatic duct. External drainage is adequate for parenchymal injuries with an intact duct, while duct injuries of the neck, body and tail require a distal pancreatectomy. Pancreatic head injuries are more complex. If the duodenum is reparable and the ampulla is intact, external drainage suffices. Rarely, complex injuries may require a pancreatoduodenectomy after damage control surgery if the patient has multiple injuries and is unstable. Postoperative pancreatic complications including fistula and pseudocysts are common but can usually be treated endoscopically.

Pancreatic trauma: The role of computed tomography for guiding therapeutic approach

AIM: To evaluate the role of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing traumatic injuries of the pancreas and guiding the therapeutic approach.

METHODS: CT exams of 6740 patients admitted to our Emergency Department between May 2005 and January 2013 for abdominal trauma were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were identified through a search of our electronic archive system by using such terms as “pancreatic injury”, “pancreatic contusion”, “pancreatic laceration”, “peri-pancreatic fluid”, “pancreatic active bleeding”. All CT examinations were performed before and after the intravenous injection of contrast material using a 16-slice multidetector row computed tomography scanner. The data sets were retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists in consensus searching for specific signs of pancreatic injury (parenchymal fracture and laceration, focal or diffuse pancreatic enlargement/edema, pancreatic hematoma, active bleeding, fluid between splenic vein and pancreas) and non-specific signs (inflammatory changes in peri-pancreatic fat and mesentery, fluid surrounding the superior mesenteric artery, thickening of the left anterior renal fascia, pancreatic ductal dilatation, acute pseudocyst formation/peri-pancreatic fluid collection, fluid in the anterior and posterior pararenal spaces, fluid in transverse mesocolon and lesser sac, hemorrhage into peri-pancreatic fat, mesocolon and mesentery, extraperitoneal fluid, intra-peritoneal fluid).

RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six/Six thousand seven hundred and forty (2%) patients showed CT signs of pancreatic trauma. Eight/one hundred and thirty-six (6%) patients underwent surgical treatment and the pancreatic injures were confirmed in all cases. Only in 6/8 patients treated with surgical approach, pancreatic duct damage was suggested in the radiological reports and surgically confirmed in all cases. In 128/136 (94%) patients who underwent non-operative treatment CT images showed pancreatic edema in 97 patients, hematoma in 31 patients, fluid between splenic vein and pancreas in 113 patients. Non-specific CT signs of pancreatic injuries were represented by peri-pancreatic fat stranding and mesentery fluid in 89% of cases, thickening of the left anterior renal fascia in 65%, pancreatic ductal dilatation in 18%, acute pseudocyst/peri-pancreatic fluid collection in 57%, fluid in the pararenal spaces in 45%, fluid in transverse mesocolon and lesser sac in 29%, hemorrhage into peri-pancreatic fat, mesocolon and mesentery in 66%, extraperitoneal fluid in 66%, intra-peritoneal fluid in 41% cases.

CONCLUSION: CT represents an accurate tool for diagnosing pancreatic trauma, provides useful information to plan therapeutic approach with a detection rate of 75% for recognizing ductal lesions.

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.

Surgical management and outcome of civilian gunshot injuries to the pancreas

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic injuries are uncommon but result in substantial morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated the factors associated with morbidity and mortality in civilian patients with pancreatic gunshot wounds.

METHODS

This was a single-institution, retrospective review of patients with gunshot wounds of the pancreas treated from 1976 to 2009 in Cape Town, South Africa. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients (205 male, median age 27 years) had pancreatic American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade I-II (111 patients) and grade III-V (108) gunshot injuries to the pancreatic head (72), neck (8), body (75) and tail (64). The patients underwent 239 laparotomies, including drainage of the pancreas (169), distal pancreatectomy (59) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (11). Some 218 patients had 642 associated intra-abdominal and 91 vascular injuries. Forty-three (19.6 per cent) required an initial damage control procedure. A total of 150 patients (68.5 per cent) had 407 postoperative complications (median 4, range 1-7). The 46 patients (21.0 per cent) who died had a median of 3 (range 1-7) complications. Median (range) intensive care unit and total hospital stay were 5 (1-153) and 11 (1-255) days respectively. Multivariable analyses identified age, high-grade pancreatic injury, associated vascular injuries and need for repeat laparotomy as predictors of morbidity. Age, shock on admission, need for damage control surgery, high-grade pancreatic injuries and associated vascular injuries were significant factors associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality rates were high after gunshot injuries to the pancreas. Initial shock and severe injury combined with need for damage control surgery were associated with the highest risk of death.

Management of pancreaticoduodenal injuries

The nature of the pancreatic or duodenal injury itself influences mortality, and is co-dependent on the presence of multiple other injuries, which account for most of the early mortality. Intra-abdominal sepsis leading to multiple organ failure accounts for most of the late deaths, indicating the importance of early haemodynamic stabilization, adequate debridement of devitalized tissue and wide drainage. Most duodenal injuries can be adequately managed with primary repair or resection and anastomosis. The presence of a pancreatic injury certainly increases the likelihood of an anastomic leak from a duodenal repair. With a significant associated pancreatic injury a more conservative initial approach to the duodenal injury may be more appropriate. Pancreatic injuries should be treated by debridement and simple drainage unless there is clinically obvious duct involvement. For distal injuries with duct involvement, a distal pancreatectomy is indicated. In injuries to the pancreatic head with clinical duct involvement, complex procedures such as pancreaticoduodenectomy should not be performed in the unstable patient with multiple injuries. Debridement and wide external drainage may be implemented and the resulting fistula dealt with at a later operation, if necessary. Large, complex, combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries may require temporary duodenal ligation or a pancreaticoduodenectomy and subsequent reconstruction.

The management of pancreatic trauma

Pancreatic trauma is an uncommon occurrence and so a consensus about optimal management is not readily available. Isolated pancreatic injury occurs only occasionally, as in the majority of cases there is concurrent visceral or vascular injury. Morbidity and mortality are related to delay in diagnosis, concurrent organ injury or the presence and extent of pancreatic duct injury.

A heuristic approach and heretic view on the technical issues and pitfalls in the management of penetrating abdominal injuries

There is a general decline in penetrating abdominal trauma throughout the western world. As a result of that, there is a significant loss of expertise in dealing with this type of injury particularly when the patient presents to theatre with physiological instability. A significant percentage of these patients will not be operated by a trauma surgeon but, by the "occasional trauma surgeon", who is usually trained as a general surgeon. Most general surgeons have a general knowledge of operating penetrating trauma, knowledge originating from their training years and possibly enhanced by reading operative surgery textbooks. Unfortunately, the details included in most of these books are not extensive enough to provide them with enough armamentaria to tackle the difficult case. In this scenario, their operative dexterity and knowledge cannot be compared to that of their trauma surgeon colleagues, something that is taken for granted in the trauma textbooks. Techniques that are considered basic and easy by the trauma surgeons can be unfamiliar and difficult to general surgeons. Knowing the danger points and pitfalls that will be encountered in penetrating trauma to the abdomen, will help the occasional trauma surgeons to avoid intraoperative errors and improve patient care. This manuscript provides a heuristic approach from surgeons working in a high volume penetrating trauma centers in South African. Some of the statements could be considered heretic by the "accepted" trauma literature. We believe that this heuristic ("rule of thumb" approach, that originating from "try and error" experience) can help surgical trainees or less experienced in penetrating trauma surgeons to improve their surgical decision making and technique, resulting in better patient outcome.

Management of pancreatic trauma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic injury can pose a formidable challenge to the surgeon, and failure to manage it correctly may have devastating consequences for the patient. Management options for pancreatic trauma are reviewed and technical issues highlighted.

METHOD

The English-language literature on pancreatic trauma from 1970 to 2006 was reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Most pancreatic injuries are minor and can be treated by external drainage. Injuries involving the body, neck and tail of the pancreas, and with suspicion or direct evidence of pancreatic duct disruption, require distal pancreatectomy. Similar injuries affecting the head of the pancreas are best managed by simple external drainage, even if there is suspected pancreatic duct injury. Pancreaticoduodenectomy should be reserved for extensive injuries to the head of the pancreas, and should be practised as part of damage control. Most complications should initially be treated by a combination of nutrition, percutaneous drainage and endoscopic stenting.

Pancreatic and duodenal injuries: keep it simple

BACKGROUND

The management of pancreatic and duodenal trauma has moved away from complex reconstructive procedures to simpler methods in keeping with the trend towards organ-specific, damage control surgery.

METHOD

A retrospective case note review was undertaken over a 30-month period to evaluate a simplified protocol for the management of these injuries.

RESULTS

Of 100 consecutive patients there were 51 with pancreatic injury, 30 with a duodenal injury and 19 with combined pancreaticoduodenal trauma. Overall mortality was 18.0%, with a late mortality (after 24 h) of 9.9%. This is comparable to previous studies. Morbidity from abscesses, fistulas and anastomotic breakdown was acceptably low.

CONCLUSION

The concept of staged laparotomy can be successfully applied to wounds of the pancreas and duodenum. Debridement of devitalized tissue and drainage can be employed for most cases of pancreatic trauma. Most duodenal injuries can be managed with debridement and primary repair. Temporary exclusion and reoperation should be employed for unstable patients.

Conduite à tenir devant un hématome rétro-péritonéal d’origine traumatique

Traumatic retroperitoneal hematoma (RPH) may arise from injury to bony structures, major blood vessels, and intestinal or retroperitoneal viscera. To categorize the management of RPH, the retroperitoneum may be divided into three zones. Zone 1 (central) extends from the esophageal hiatus to the sacral promontory. Zone 2 (lateral) extends from the lateral diaphragm to the iliac crest. Zone 3 (pelvic) is confined to the retroperitoneal space of the pelvic bowl. For the traumatized patient with RPH, laparotomy is mandated by persistent hemodynamic instability despite intensive volume replacement. The judgment of whether and when to explore the retroperitoneal hematoma is guided by the mechanism of injury (blunt or penetrating) and the location of the RPH. RPH localized to the upper central area (Zone 1) after penetrating trauma implies injury to the great vessels and always requires urgent surgical exploration. RPH in other zones should be evaluated by CT and/or angiography; ongoing hemorrhage may respond to therapeutic embolization.

Pancreatic injury in severe trauma: early diagnosis and therapy improve the outcome

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic injury is a dangerous complication in multiple injury, and experience with its diagnosis and treatment is usually limited.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of 3,840 patients admitted after multiple trauma from January 1, 1982, until May 31, 2000.

RESULTS

A laparotomy was performed in 121 cases (3.15%) due to suspected intra-abdominal lesion. 32% of the patients (39/121) had a pancreatic lesion; 23% (9/39) had a rupture of the major pancreatic duct. Primary laparotomy was performed in 72% of the patients (28/39). Superficial lesions were treated by explorative laparotomy alone (n = 7), debridement and external drainage (n = 20), or necrosectomy and lavage (n = 3). Complex pancreatic lesions were treated by pancreatojejunostomies (n = 5), pancreatic left resections (n = 2), or exploration alone (n = 2). 8 of 39 patients died (20%), 4 intraoperatively. Of the surviving 35 patients, a pancreas-associated complication developed in 8 patients (23%): pancreatic abscesses (n = 4), traumatic pancreatitis (n = 3), pancreatic fistulas (n = 2), and pseudocysts (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic injury is an infrequent but dangerous complication in severe trauma. Superficial lesions not affecting the major pancreatic duct can be managed by debridement and external drainage. If the major pancreatic duct is ruptured, organ-preserving, complex reconstructive procedures are necessary. When diagnosed timely and treated according to severity and overall situation, pancreatic injuries have an acceptable morbidity, but usually a high mortality.

Duodenal injuries

BACKGROUND

The worldwide increase in road traffic accidents and use of firearms has increased the incidence of duodenal trauma.

METHODS

The English language literature on duodenal trauma over the period 1970-1999 was reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Upper gastrointestinal radiological studies and computed tomography may lead to the diagnosis of blunt duodenal trauma. Exploratory laparotomy remains the ultimate diagnostic test if a high suspicion of duodenal injury continues in the face of absent or equivocal radiographic signs. The majority of duodenal injuries may be managed by simple repair. More complicated injuries require more sophisticated techniques. High-risk duodenal injuries are followed by a high incidence of suture line dehiscence and they should be treated by duodenal diversion. Pancreaticoduodenectomy should be considered only if no alternative is available. 'Damage control' should precede definitive reconstruction.