Effect of damage control surgery on major abdominal vascular trauma

H12‐(ADP)‐liposomes for hemorrhagic shock in thrombocytopenia: Mesenteric artery injury model in rabbits

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Damage control in abdominal vascular trauma

In patients with abdominal trauma who require laparotomy, up to a quarter or a third will have a vascular injury. The venous structures mainly injured are the vena cava (29%) and the iliac veins (20%), and arterial vessels are the iliac arteries (16%) and the aorta (14%). The initial approach is performed following the ATLS principles. This manuscript aims to present the surgical approach to abdominal vascular trauma following damage control principles. The priority in a trauma laparotomy is bleeding control. Hemorrhages of intraperitoneal origin are controlled by applying pressure, clamping, packing, and retroperitoneal with selective pressure. After the temporary bleeding control is achieved, the compromised vascular structure must be identified, according to the location of the hematomas. The management of all lesions should be oriented towards the expeditious conclusion of the laparotomy, focusing efforts on the bleeding control and contamination, with a postponement of the definitive management. Their management of vascular injuries includes ligation, transient bypass, and packing of selected low-pressure vessels and bleeding surfaces. Subsequently, the unconventional closure of the abdominal cavity should be performed, preferably with negative pressure systems, to reoperate once the hemodynamic alterations and coagulopathy have been corrected to carry out the definitive management.

Prevalence and outcome of abdominal vascular injury in severe trauma patients based on a TraumaRegister DGU international registry analysis

This study details the etiology, frequency and effect of abdominal vascular injuries in patients after polytrauma based on a large registry of trauma patients. The impact of arterial, venous and mixed vascular injuries on patients' outcome was of interest, as in particular the relevance of venous vessel injury may be underestimated and not adequately assessed in literature so far. All patients of TraumaRegister DGU with the following criteria were included: online documentation of european trauma centers, age 16-85 years, presence of abdominal vascular injury and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3. Patients were divided in three groups of: arterial injury only, venous injury only, mixed arterial and venous injuries. Reporting in this study adheres to the STROBE criteria. A total of 2949 patients were included. All types of abdominal vessel injuries were more prevalent in patients with abdominal trauma followed by thoracic trauma. Rate of patients with shock upon admission were the same in patients with arterial injury alone (n = 606, 33%) and venous injury alone (n = 95, 32%). Venous trauma showed higher odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.48; 95% CI 1.10-1.98, p = 0.010). Abdominal arterial and venous injury in patients suffering from severe trauma were associated with a comparable rate of hemodynamic instability at the time of admission. 24 h as well as in-hospital mortality rate were similar in in patients with venous injury and arterial injury. Stable patients suspected of abdominal vascular injuries should be further investigated to exclude or localize the possible subtle venous injury.

Incidence, morbidity, and mortality of traumatic superior mesenteric artery injuries compared to other visceral arteries

Objectives

Celiac artery, superior mesenteric artery, and inferior mesenteric artery injuries are often grouped together as major visceral artery injuries with an incidence of <1%. The mortality rates range from 38–75% for celiac artery injuries and 25–68% for superior mesenteric artery injuries. No large series have investigated the mortality rate of inferior mesenteric artery injuries. We hypothesize that from all the major visceral artery injuries, superior mesenteric artery injury leads to the highest risk of mortality in adult trauma patients.

Methods

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) was queried for patients with injury to the celiac artery, superior mesenteric artery, or inferior mesenteric artery. A multivariable logistic regression model was used for analysis. Separate subset analyses using blunt trauma patients and penetrating trauma patients were performed.

Results

From 1,403,466 patients, 1730 had single visceral artery injuries with 699 (40.4%) involving the celiac artery, 889 (51.4%) involving the superior mesenteric artery, and 142 (8.2%) involving the inferior mesenteric artery. The majority of patients were male (79.2%) with a median age of 39 years old, and median injury severity score of 22. Compared to celiac artery and inferior mesenteric artery injuries, superior mesenteric artery injuries had a higher rate of severe (grade >3) abbreviated injury scale for the abdomen (57.5% vs. 42.5%, p < 0.001). The overall mortality for patients with a single visceral artery injury was 20%. Patients with superior mesenteric artery injury had higher mortality compared to those with celiac artery and inferior mesenteric artery injuries (23.7% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.001). After controlling for covariates, traumatic superior mesenteric artery injury increased risk of mortality (OR = 1.72, CI = 1.24–2.37, p < 0.01) in adult trauma patients, while celiac artery ( p = 0.59) and inferior mesenteric artery ( p = 0.31) injury did not. After stratifying by mechanism, superior mesenteric artery injury increased risk of mortality (OR = 3.65, CI = 2.01–6.45, p < 0.001) in adult trauma patients with penetrating mechanism of injury but not in those with blunt force mechanism (OR = 1.22, CI = 0.81–1.85, p = 0.34).

Conclusions

Compared to injuries of the celiac artery and inferior mesenteric artery, traumatic superior mesenteric artery injury is associated with a higher mortality. Moreover, while superior mesenteric artery injury does not act as an independent risk factor for mortality in adult patients with blunt force trauma, it nearly quadruples the risk of mortality in adult trauma patients with penetrating mechanism of injury. Future prospective research is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate factors to improve survival following major visceral artery injury.

Abdominal vascular injuries: Blunt vs. penetrating

INTRODUCTION

Abdominal vascular injuries (AVIs) remain a great challenge since they are associated with significant mortality. Penetrating injury is the most common cause of AVIs; however, some AVI series had more blunt injuries. There is little information regarding differences between penetrating and blunt AVIs. The objective of the present study was to identify the differences between these two mechanisms in civilian AVI patients in terms of patient's characteristics, injury details, and outcomes.

METHOD

From January 2007 to January 2016, we retrospectively collected the data of AVI patients at King Chulalongkorn Memorial hospital, including demographic data, details of injury, the operative managements, and outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality. The comparison of the data between blunt and penetrating AVI patients was performed.

RESULTS

There were 55 AVI patients (28 blunt and 27 penetrating). Majority (78%) of the patients in both groups were in shock on arrival. Blunt AVI patients had significantly higher injury severity score (mean(SD) ISS, 36(20) vs. 25(9), p = 0.019) and more internal iliac artery injuries (8 vs. 1, p = 0.028). On the other hand, penetrating AVI patients had more aortic injuries (5 vs. 0, p = 0.046), and inferior vena cava injuries (7 vs. 0, p = 0.009). Damage control surgery (DCS) was performed in 45 patients (82%), 25 in blunt and 20 in penetrating. The overall mortality rate was 40% (50% in blunt vs. 30% in penetrating, p = 0.205).

CONCLUSIONS

Blunt AVI patients had higher ISS and more internal iliac artery injuries, while penetrating AVI patients had more aortic injuries and vena cava injuries. Majority of AVI patients in both groups presented with shock and required DCS.

Management of intra-abdominal vascular injury in trauma laparotomy: a South African experience

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal vascular injury (IAVI) is uncommon but continues to be associated with high mortality rates despite technological advances in the past decades. In light of these ongoing developments, we reviewed our contemporary experience with IAVI in an attempt to clarify and refine our management strategies and the outcome of these patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients admitted between January 2011 and December 2014 at a major trauma centre in South Africa who were found to have an IAVI during laparotomy for trauma. We collected demographic and clinical data including mechanism of injury, location and severity of the injury, concurrent injuries, physiologic parameters and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

We identified 110 patients with IAVIs, of whom 98 had sustained penetrating injuries (55 gunshot wounds and 43 stab wounds). There were 84 arterial injuries (including 21 renal and 17 mesenteric) and 74 venous injuries (including 21 renal and 17 inferior vena caval). Combined venous and arterial injuries were found in almost one-third of patients (34 [30.9%]). Fifty-seven patients (51.8%) required intensive care admission. The overall mortality rate was 28.2% (31 patients); the rate was 62% for aortic injuries and 47% for inferior vena cava injuries. Liver injury, large bowel injury, splenic injury and elevated lactate level were all associated with a statistically significantly higher mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

The mortality rate for IAVI remains high despite decades of operative experience in high-volume centres. Open operative techniques alone are unlikely to achieve further reduction in mortality rates. Integration of endovascular techniques may provide an alternative strategy to improve outcomes.

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.

Resuscitation of Polytrauma Patients: The Management of Massive Skeletal Bleeding

The term ‘severely injured patient’ is often synonymous of polytrauma patient, multiply-injured patient or, in some settings, polyfractured patient. Together with brain trauma, copious bleeding is the most severe complication of polytrauma. Consequently hypotension develop. Then, the perfusion of organs may be compromised, with the risk of organ failure. Treatment of chest bleeding after trauma is essential and is mainly addressed via surgical manoeuvres. As in the case of lesions to the pelvis, abdomen or extremities, this approach demonstrates the application of damage control (DC). The introduction of sonography has dramatically changed the diagnosis and prognosis of abdominal bleeding. In stable patients, a contrast CT-scan should be performed before any x-ray projection, because, in an emergency situation, spinal or pelvic fractures be missed by conventional radiological studies. Fractures or dislocation of the pelvis causing enlargement of the pelvic cavity, provoked by an anteroposterior trauma, and in particular cases presenting vertical instability, are the most severe types and require fast stabilisation by closing the pelvic ring diameter to normal dimensions and by stabilising the vertical shear. Controversy still exists about whether angiography or packing should be used as the first choice to address active bleeding after pelvic ring closure. Pelvic angiography plays a significant complementary role to pelvic packing for final haemorrhage control. Apart from pelvic trauma, fracture of the femur is the only fracture provoking acute life-threatening bleeding. If possible, femur fractures should be immobilised immediately, either by external fixation or by a sheet wrap around both extremities.

Traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage control: has current technology tipped the balance toward a role for prehospital intervention?

BACKGROUND

The identification and control of traumatic hemorrhage from the torso remains a major challenge and carries a significant mortality despite the reduction of transfer times. This review examines the current technologies that are available for abdominal hemorrhage control within the prehospital setting and evaluates their effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases was undertaken. Where appropriate, evidence was highlighted using the Oxford levels of clinical evidence. The primary outcome assessed was mortality, and secondary outcomes included blood loss and complications associated with each technique.

RESULTS

Of 89 studies, 34 met the inclusion criteria, of which 29 were preclinical in vivo trials and 5 were clinical. Techniques were subdivided into mechanical compression, endovascular control, and energy-based hemostatic devices. Gas insufflation and manual pressure techniques had no associated mortalities. There was one mortality with high intensity focused ultrasound. The intra-abdominal infiltration of foam treatment had 64% and the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta had 74% mortality risk reduction. In the majority of cases, morbidity and blood loss associated with each interventional procedure were less than their respective controls.

CONCLUSION

Mortality from traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage could be reduced through early intervention at the scene by emerging technology. Manual pressure or the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta techniques have demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the control of major vessel bleeding, although complications need to be carefully considered before advocating clinical use. At present, fast transfer to the trauma center remains paramount.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level IV.

The impact of a massive transfusion protocol on outcomes among patients with abdominal aortic injuries

BACKGROUND

Injuries of the abdominal aorta are uncommon and associated with a high mortality. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of an institutional massive transfusion protocol (MTP) on outcomes in patients with injuries of the abdominal aorta.

METHODS

A 12.5-year retrospective analysis of a Level 1 trauma center database to identify patients with abdominal aortic injuries was conducted. Demographics, associated injuries and severity, operative procedures, resuscitation requirements, and outcomes were compared among patients before and after implementation of an MTP.

RESULTS

Of the 46 patients with abdominal aortic injuries, 29 (63%) were in the pre-MTP group and 17 (37%) were in the post-MTP group. The mean age of the entire cohort was 32 ± 17 years and the two most common mechanisms of injury were gunshot wounds (63%) followed by motor vehicle collisions (24%). Thirteen patients (28%) underwent an emergency department thoracotomy and 11 patients (24%) sustained concomitant inferior vena cava injuries. There was a significant reduction in the volume of pre- and intraoperative crystalloids administered between the pre- and post-MTP groups. Intraoperatively, the use of tranexamic acid was increased in the post-MTP group (P < 0.001). A statistically significant difference in achievement of a low packed red blood cells to fresh frozen plasma ratio was observed for the post- versus the pre-MTP group (88% vs. 30%, P = 0.015). Overall survival was improved among post- versus pre-MTP patients (47% vs. 14%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal aortic injuries continue to represent a challenge and remain associated with a high mortality. Modern improvements in damage control resuscitation techniques including implementation of an institutional MTP may improve outcomes in patients with these injuries.