Avoiding futile damage control laparotomy

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.

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.

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.

Impact of age on the clinical outcomes of major trauma

PURPOSE

In view of demographic changes over the past few decades, the average age of trauma patients is progressively increasing. We therefore aimed to summarize the specific characteristics of geriatric trauma and to identify potential fields for further research to improve the care of elderly trauma patients.

METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS

Due to the diverse risk factors (e.g., pre-existing conditions, limited physiological reserve), geriatric patients are prone to developing severe complications, even after less severe trauma. Yet, age is not considered as the only predictor of worse outcomes, and it should not be considered the only criterion for limiting care in those patients. It is crucial that age-specific treatment guidelines are developed to optimize the outcomes for senior trauma patients. Based on the current literature, these guidelines should emphasize the importance of field triage directly to a trauma center, along with the activation of the trauma team. Furthermore, early intensive monitoring, aggressive resuscitation, and time of surgical intervention are of upmost importance to reduce mortality.

CONCLUSION

The impact of several factors [age, premedical conditions (PMC), decreased physiological reserves, and impaired immune function] on the post-traumatic course of elderly trauma patients needs to be clarified in future experimental and clinical studies for the early identification of geriatric high-risk patients and for the development of age-adapted therapeutic strategies.

[Damage control surgery: an update]

The damage control surgery is a widely accepted concept today among abdominal trauma specialists when it comes to the severely traumatized. In these patients, the death is due, in most cases, to the installation of the lethal triad (hypothermia, coagulopathy and acidosis) and not the inability to repair the serious initial damage. In this review, the authors address the lethal triad in its three phases and emphasize the measures taken to prevent them, as well as discussing the indication and employment of damage control surgery in its various stages. Restoring the physiological status of the patient in the ICU, so that he/she can be submitted to final operation and closure of the abdominal cavity, another challenge in severe trauma patients, is also discussed.

Challenges in the Management of the Open Abdomen

First described more than 60 years ago, the open abdomen has now become a relatively common entity in surgical ICUs. Although the indications for an open abdomen have evolved since the original description of the damage control laparotomy, the goal remains to provide an unstable or critically ill patient time to correct their physiologic derangements. Temporary abdominal closure is thus used as a bridge to definitive repair and closure. Unfortunately, the open abdomen is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and recent studies have suggested an overuse of the technique. Once the decision is made to proceed with an open abdomen, multiple options exist for temporary abdominal closure. The hope is to obtain definitive closure shortly thereafter in an attempt to reduce potential complications including intra-abdominal infection or enteroatmospheric fistula. Options for temporary closure range from the Bogotá bag to vacuum-assisted techniques; a combined technique of sequential fascial closure with vacuum assistance has recently been shown to result in 100% fascial approximation. In situations where fascial closure is unattainable, temporary coverage with a skin graft may be employed, followed by late abdominal closure via complex abdominal herniorrhaphy. Even using advanced methods such as component separation or a “pork sandwich” technique, the complication and recurrence rates remain high. A careful understanding of the indications, optimal management, and potential complications of the open abdomen is necessary to limit its overuse and ultimately reduce some of the challenges associated with it.

The damage control sequence in the elderly: Strategy, complexities, and outcomes

Traditional management in cases of exsanguinating abdominal trauma led to poor outcomes in critically injured patients. Because prolonged operations were not well tolerated due to the severe physiologic derangements, an abbreviated laparotomy began to be used. Patients were then resuscitated in the intensive care unit and brought back to the operating room once their physiology had been normalised. This approach has been termed the damage control sequence. Elderly trauma patients are susceptible to significant injury that may mandate a damage control sequence. For myriad reasons, including pre-existing medical conditions, decreased physiologic reserve, and the emergent nature of their injuries, the application of this management approach in the elderly is fraught with challenges. The purpose of this review is to enumerate the damage control sequence, describe the complexities of its use in the elderly, and discuss associated outcomes in this challenging patient population.

Recombinant factor VIIa in trauma patients with the 'triad of death'

INTRODUCTION

The use of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in trauma patients is usually part of rescue therapy when haemorrhage and coagulopathy have not responded to conventional treatment. In this scenario, trauma patients are likely to have one or more components of the 'triad of death' (coagulopathy, acidosis and hypothermia). The aim of this study was to report on the outcome of trauma patients with the 'triad of death' immediately prior to receiving rFVIIa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Trauma patients receiving rFVIIa with the 'triad of death' were identified from the Australia and New Zealand Haemostasis Registry (ANZHR) and included in the study. The 'triad of death' was defined as an INR of >1.5, serum pH of <7.2 and a core temperature of <35 °C. Pre-dose clinical signs, investigations, adverse events and outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 2792 patients in the ANZHR, of which 386 were trauma patients and 45 patients had the 'triad of death'. Patients with the 'triad of death' were significantly older and had higher injury severity scores than other trauma patients, with a mortality of 68.9%. Survivors were significantly less acidaemic (p<0.001) and had significantly less packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion prior to rFVIIa administration (p=0.041) than non-survivors with the triad of death.

DISCUSSION

In the face of refractory bleeding, coagulopathy, acidosis and hypothermia following conventional resuscitation, the use of rFVIIa in trauma patients was associated with survival in 31% of patients and may be considered as a management option. Administration of rFVIIa in patients with a pH of <6.91 appears futile.