Incidence and Outcome of Pulmonary Embolism following Popliteal Venous Repair in Trauma Cases

Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) among trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is a standard imaging technique employed for the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the prevalence of PE among the trauma patients undergoing CTPA.

METHODS

A comprehensive search across PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science yielded 13 studies encompassing 5,570 individuals conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Studies that used CTPA for the detection of PE among the trauma patients were selected. This resulted in an evaluation of prevalence, trauma types, clinical manifestations, radiological findings, and mortality rates of PE among traumatic patients undergoing CTPA.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of PE among trauma patients undergoing CTPA was 18% (95% CI = 13-24%). After pooling the existing data, femur fractures were determined to be the most prevalent trauma type (12%). The most prevalent clinical manifestations of PE among trauma patients included shortness of breath, chest pain, and altered vital signs. Radiological findings encompassed various pulmonary abnormalities, such as opacity, ground-glass opacities, and pleural effusions. Mortality rates of PE among the trauma patients ranged from 0% to 29.4% across the included studies.

CONCLUSION

This study provides comprehensive insights into the prevalence, clinical manifestations, radiological findings and mortality of PE among trauma patients undergoing CTPA. According to our findings, lower threshold for CTPA is recommended in patients with lower extremity or spine fractures.

Review article: History of venous trauma

ABSTRACT

This is a literature review on the history of venous trauma since the 1800s, especially that to the common femoral, femoral and popliteal veins, with focus on the early 1900s, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and then civilian and military reviews (1960-2020). In the latter two groups, tables were used to summarize the following: incidence of venous repair versus ligation, management of popliteal venous injuries, patency of venous repairs when assessed <30 days from operation, patency of venous repairs when assessed >30 days from operation, clinical assessment (edema or not) after ligation versus repair, incidence of deep venous thrombosis after ligation versus repair, and incidence of pulmonary embolism after ligation versus repair.There is a lack of the following in the literature on the management of venous injuries over the past 80 years: standard definition of magnitude of venous injury in operative reports, accepted indications for venous repair, standard postoperative management, and timing and mode of early and later postoperative assessment.Multiple factors have entered into the decision on venous ligation versus repair after trauma for the past 60 years, but a surgeon's training and local management protocols have the most influence in both civilian and military centers. Ligation of venous injuries, particularly those in the lower extremities, is well tolerated in civilian trauma, although there is the usual lack of short- and long-term follow-up as noted in many of the articles reviewed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review article, levels IV and V.

Venous ligation versus venous repair: does the procedure impact venous thromboembolism risk?

Background

Traumatic lower extremity venous injuries are most commonly managed with either a vein ligation or repair procedure. Venous injuries are associated with an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolisms (VTE), but little is understood with regard to how specific surgical treatments may impact the risk of developing either a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or a pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study of lower extremity venous injuries, we hypothesized that venous ligation would be associated with an increased risk of DVT but a lower risk of PE when compared with venous repair.

Methods

Patients were identified from the National Trauma Data Bank (2008 to 2014) with at least one iliac, femoral, popliteal, or tibial venous injury and who received either a vein ligation or repair. The patients were then compared based on the type of procedure and the location of the injury to assess the risk of DVT and PE between the groups.

Results

A total of 1214 patients were identified. There was no difference between patients who received a vein ligation versus a repair with respect to age, injury severity score, or initial systolic blood pressure. There was no difference in the odds of developing either a DVT or PE between patients who were treated with vein ligation versus repair. There was also no difference in VTE rates when stratified by the location of the injury.

Conclusions

In individuals with lower extremity venous injuries, there is no difference in the rate of DVT or PE complications when comparing venous repair and ligation procedures. The role of anticoagulation remains to be elucidated following operative treatment.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.

Venous thromboembolism after major venous injuries: Competing priorities

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after major vascular injury (MVI) is particularly challenging because the competing risk of thrombosis and embolization after direct vessel injury must be balanced with risk of bleeding after surgical repair. We hypothesized that venous injuries, repair type, and intraoperative anticoagulation would influence VTE formation after MVI.

METHODS

A multi-institution, retrospective cohort study of consecutive MVI patients was conducted at three urban, Level I centers (2005-2013). Patients with MVI of the neck, torso, or proximal extremities (to elbows/knees) were included. Our primary study endpoint was the development of VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE]).

RESULTS

The 435 major vascular injury patients were primarily young (27 years) men (89%) with penetrating (84%) injuries. When patients with (n = 108) and without (n = 327) VTE were compared, we observed no difference in age, mechanism, extremity injury, tourniquet use, orthopedic and spine injuries, damage control, local heparinized saline, or vascular surgery consultation (all p > 0.05). VTE patients had greater Injury Severity Score (ISS) (17 vs. 12), shock indices (1 vs. 0.9), and more torso (58% vs. 35%) and venous (73% vs. 48%) injuries, but less often received systemic intraoperative anticoagulation (39% vs. 53%) or postoperative enoxaparin (47% vs. 61%) prophylaxis (all p < 0.05). After controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis, multivariable analysis revealed venous injury was independently predictive of VTE (odds ratio, 2.7; p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis of the venous injuries subset (n = 237) then determined that only delay in starting VTE chemoprophylaxis (odds ratio, 1.3/day; p = 0.013) independently predicted VTE after controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, surgical subspecialty, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis. Overall, 3.4% of venous injury patients developed PE, but PE rates were not related to their operative management (p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Patients with major venous injuries are at high risk for VTE, regardless of intraoperative management. Our results support the immediate initiation of postoperative chemoprophylaxis in patients with major venous injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Risk of pulmonary embolism with repair or ligation of major venous injury following penetrating trauma

BACKGROUND

There are many benefits of repair over ligation of major venous injuries (MVIs) following penetrating trauma, but the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) is not well defined. We hypothesized that rates of PE are comparable between repair and ligation of MVI.

METHODS

All penetrating trauma patients with MVI requiring an operation from 2003 to 2012 (n = 158) were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model using patient and injury characteristics. A 1:1 fixed ratio nearest neighbor matching was performed to compare outcomes of the repair and ligation cohorts. Data are reported as mean ± SD if parametric, or median (interquartile range) if not, and compared using a t test, Mann-Whitney U-test, χ2, or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

The population was 89% male, age 32 ± 12 years, 74% gunshot wound, Injury Severity Score of 19 ± 13, length of stay of 9 (18) days, 3.8% PE, and a mortality of 21.5%. Repair was performed in 37% (n = 59), ligation was performed in 60% (n = 94), and 3% required both. With ligation versus repair, ligation patients were generally more critically injured; 48-hour survival was 78% versus 93% (p = 0.0083), initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was 12 ± 5 versus 14 ± 3 (p = 0.003), initial base excess was -9 ± 8 versus -5 ± 5 mEq/L (p = 0.003), more packed red blood cells were transfused (12 (14) U vs. 9 (12) U; p = 0.032), and major arterial injury was more likely (86% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), but the PE rate was identical (5.9%) in propensity-matched cohorts. In those who developed a PE, all were receiving standard thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Following penetrating trauma, the risk of PE between repair and ligation of MVI is comparable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic study, level III.

Compartment Syndrome following Open Femoral Fracture with an Isolated Femoral Vein Injury Treated with Acute Repair

Acute compartment syndrome is a surgical emergency and its diagnosis is more difficult in obtunded or insensate patients. We present the case of a 34-year-old woman who sustained a Gustilo-Anderson grade III open midshaft femur fracture with an isolated femoral vein injury treated with direct repair. She developed lower leg compartment syndrome at 48 hours postoperatively, necessitating fasciotomies. She was subsequently found to have a DVT in her femoral vein at the level of the repair and was started on therapeutic anticoagulation. This case highlights the importance of recognition of isolated venous injuries in a trauma setting as a risk factor for developing compartment syndrome.