Applying peripheral vascular injury guidelines to penetrating trauma

Open versus endovascular repair of penetrating non-aortic arterial injuries: A systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-aortic arterial injuries are common and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Historically, open surgical repair (OSR) was the conventional method of repair. With recent advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endovascular repair (ER) has gained popularity. We sought to compare outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular and open repairs of traumatic non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus Database from January 1st, 1990, to March 20th, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full text review. Articles assessing clinically important outcomes between OSR and ER in penetrating arterial injuries were included. Exclusion criteria included blunt injuries, aortic injuries, pediatric populations, review articles, and non-English articles. Odds ratios (OR) and Cohen's d ratios were used to quantify differences in morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3770 articles were identified, of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The articles comprised a total of 8369 patients of whom 90 % were male with a median age of 28 years. 85 % of patients were treated with OSR while 15 % underwent ER. With regards to injury characteristics, those who underwent ER were less likely to present with concurrent venous injuries (OR: 0.41; 95 %CI: 0.18, 0.94; p = 0.03). Regarding hospital outcomes, patients who underwent ER had a lower likelihood of in-hospital or 30-day mortality (OR: 0.72; 95 %CI: 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.02) and compartment syndrome (OR: 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.12, 0.71; p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair of non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries is increasingly common, however open repair remains the most common approach. Compared to ER, OSR was associated with higher odds of compartment syndrome and mortality. Further prospective research is warranted to determine the patient populations and injury patterns that most significantly benefit from an endovascular approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses.

Endovascular Embolization of a Perforated Deep Femoral Artery in a 15-Year-Old Boy

Trauma patients who are hemodynamically unstable or have certain signs of vascular injury should have immediate surgical exploration. For less severe signs of vascular injury, current literature states that endovascular intervention is optimal. This case presents the opportunity to review how signs of vascular injury were considered along with other diagnostic tools to inform decision-making after a penetrating stab wound injury to an extremity.  A 15-year-old male presented to the emergency department (ED) as a trauma activation after being stabbed in the left thigh. The patient had an approximately 5 cm long laceration over the lateral superior aspect of his left thigh with visible subcutaneous tissue and biceps femoris muscle upon probing. He had an initial blood pressure of 101/61 mm Hg. Shortly after the tourniquet was removed, the patient developed brisk bleeding from the wound and his blood pressure decreased to 88/55 mm Hg. He was taken expediently to computed tomography (CT) for an angiogram of the lower extremity which showed active bleeding from a posterior peripheral branch arising from the deep femoral artery in the posterolateral thigh. Interventional radiology performed intravascular embolization, and hemostasis was achieved. The patient was admitted for observation and then discharged 17 hours after admission without ambulatory difficulty. We present a case of penetrating extremity trauma (PET) where the patient had a presentation with mixed hard signs and soft signs of vascular injury. The patient responded well to endovascular embolization. Early detection and intervention in PET are critical in minimizing blood loss and ischemia to distal structures. While following professional organization guidelines can help guide care, a collaborative approach by multiple specialty care teams is critical in providing optimal care in PET.

Risk factors for major amputation after arterial vascular trauma of the lower extremity

Background & objective:

Arterial vascular trauma bears a great risk of poor functional outcome or limb loss. The aim of this study was to analyze amputation rates of patients after vascular trauma and to perform a predictor analysis for the risk of major amputation.

Methods:

In a single-center retrospective analysis of 119 extremities treated for arterial vascular injury between 1990 and 2018 amputation rates and factors associated with limb loss were assessed. All patients were treated for traumatic vascular injuries; iatrogenic injuries were not included in the study.

Results:

During the study period, a total of 119 legs in 118 patients were treated after arterial vascular trauma. The in-hospital major amputation rate was 16.8% and the mortality rate was 2.5%. In the predictors analysis, vascular re-operation (amputation rate 53.8% vs 12%, odds ratio = 8.56), a Rutherford category ⩾IIb (25.4% vs 4.2%, odds ratio = 6.43), work-related or traffic accidents (28.2% vs 0%, odds ratio = 4.86), concomitant soft tissue or bone injuries (26.7% vs 7.3%, odds ratio = 4.64), polytrauma (33.3% vs 12%, odds ratio = 3.68), and blunt trauma (18.9% vs 0% for penetrating trauma, odds ratio = 1.64) were found to be associated with amputation.

Conclusions:

Lower extremity arterial vascular trauma was associated with a significant major amputation rate. Several predictors for limb loss were identified, which could aid in identifying patients at risk and adapting their treatment.

[Interventional management of peripheral vascular injuries : From the exclusion indication to the procedure of first choice]

BACKGROUND

Approximately one third of all traumatic peripheral artery injuries affect the upper extremities, while two thirds involve the arteries of the lower extremities. Historically, these injuries were treated by open surgical repair. Nowadays, interventional treatment, such as embolization or stent grafting are increasingly used to treat peripheral artery injuries.

OBJECTIVE

Determination of the current state of interventional treatment options for injuries of peripheral arteries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Selective literature review on the current state of interventional management of peripheral artery injuries.

RESULTS

Although scarce, the available data confirm the efficacy of interventional techniques for managing peripheral artery injuries; however, despite improvements in treatment techniques and interventional devices, not all patients are equally well suited for endovascular or open surgical treatment. Consequently, a multidisciplinary decision on the best treatment has to be made on a case by case basis.

CONCLUSION

According to the promising clinical data, interventional treatment should be considered more often. Diagnostic algorithms need to be adapted accordingly.

Life and Limb: Current Concepts in Endovascular Treatment of Extremity Trauma

Traumatic injury is the leading cause of death worldwide in younger patient populations and extremity trauma with associated vascular injury accounts for many trauma-related deaths. Iatrogenic injury is also a common cause of extremity vascular trauma and the incidence of iatrogenic injury will likely increase as endovascular techniques continue to become more ubiquitous. For many vascular injuries involving the extremities, surgical repair is viewed as the standard of care. Historically, endovascular techniques did not play a role in the treatment of these vascular injuries, rather they were utilized only as part of the diagnostic assessment; however, there is an increasing trend toward endovascular management of extremity vascular trauma. No validated, widely implemented algorithm to select patients for endovascular intervention exists. Transcatheter techniques, however, play an important role in the management of these patients. For arterial injuries, embolization can be used to rapidly achieve hemostasis if the vessel can be sacrificed. More advanced endovascular techniques such as stent-graft placement may be best employed in the context of isolated, proximal extremity injuries, although there is increasing literature supporting the use of advanced techniques for more distal arterial injuries. The management of peripheral venous trauma remains controversial; however, there is growing data describing successful endovascular management of some peripheral venous injuries. The purpose of this article is to review extremity vascular trauma, concepts of injury triage, endovascular techniques, and intraprocedural considerations.

Open vs Endovascular Treatment of Traumatic Peripheral Arterial Injury: Propensity Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Arterial injuries occur in the setting of blunt and penetrating trauma. Despite increasing use, there remains a paucity of data comparing long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair management of these injuries. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes and readmission rates of open vs endovascular repair of traumatic arterial injuries.

STUDY DESIGN

The National Readmission Database (2011-2014) was queried for all adult (age ≥ 18 y) patients presenting with peripheral arterial (axillary, brachial, femoral, and popliteal) injuries. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on intervention: open vs endovascular approach. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was performed. Outcomes measures were complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and cost of readmission.

RESULTS

A matched cohort of 786 patients was obtained (endovascular: 262, open: 524). Mean age was 45 ± 17 years, and 79% were males. Median LOS was 4 (range 2-6) days for the endovascular group vs 3 (range 2-5) days for the open group (p < 0.01). The endovascular group had higher rates of seroma (4% vs 2%; p = 0.04) and arterial thrombosis (13% vs 7%; p < 0.01) during index hospitalization. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had higher 30-day readmission (11% vs 7%; p = 0.03) and a higher 30-day open-reoperation rate (6% vs 2%; p < 0.01). On subanalysis of the patients who were readmitted, the median cost of each readmission was higher in the endovascular group $47,000 ($27,202-$56,763) compared with $21,000 ($11,889-$43,503) in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair for peripheral arterial injuries was associated with higher rates of in-hospital complications, readmissions, and costs. As this new technology continues to undergo refinement, a thorough re-evaluation of its indications, risks, and benefits is warranted.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines on diagnosis and management of peripheral vascular injuries

The peripheral arteries and veins of the extremities are among the most commonly injured vessels in both civilian and military vascular trauma. Blunt causes are more frequent than penetrating except during military conflicts and in certain geographic areas. Physical examination and simple bedside investigations of pulse pressures are key in early identification of these injuries. In stable patients with equivocal physical examinations, computed tomography angiograms have become the mainstay of screening and diagnosis. Immediate open surgical repair remains the first-line therapy in most patients. However, advances in endovascular therapies and more widespread availability of this technology have resulted in an increase in the range of injuries and frequency of utilization of minimally invasive treatments for vascular injuries in stable patients. Prevention of and early detection and treatment of compartment syndrome remain essential in the recovery of patients with significant peripheral vascular injuries. The decision to perform amputation in patients with mangled extremities remains difficult with few clear indicators. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in conjunction with the World Society of Emergency Surgery seeks to summarize the literature to date and provide guidelines on the presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of peripheral vascular injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review study, level IV.

Penetrating Extremity Trauma Endovascular versus Open Repair?

Penetrating extremity trauma (PET) accounts for an estimated 5-15% of trauma with vascular injury and these injuries are accountable for a significant percentage of trauma-related deaths. Historically, vascular injuries were best treated by open repair. While a defined selection criteria and a comprehensive algorithm have not been validated, the advancement of endovascular techniques, embolotherapy, and stent grafting have become viable options for the treatment of penetrating arterial extremity trauma in select patients. Advantages endovascular repair offers include decreasing mortality and morbidity associated with open repair, decreasing blood loss, decreasing iatrogenic injury such as nerve injury, and lower rate of wound infection. Patients stability, type of vascular injury, and lesion location are main factors help deciding between endovascular and open repair. Patient selection between endovascular and open repair should be determined by on a case-by-case situation, individual hospital guidelines, a multidisciplinary approach, and technical expertise.

Endovascular Therapy of Vascular Trauma—Current Options and Review of the Literature

Objective:

To review the current use of endovascular techniques in trauma.

Summary Background Data:

Multiple studies have demonstrated that, despite current guidelines, endovascular therapies are used in instances of arterial trauma.

Methods:

The existing literature concerning arterial trauma was reviewed. Studies reviewed included case reports, single-center case series, large database studies, official industry publications and instructions for use, and society guidelines.

Results:

Endovascular therapies are used in arterial trauma in all systems. The use of thoracic endografts in blunt thoracic aortic trauma is accepted and endorsed by society guidelines. The use of endovascular therapies in other anatomic locations is largely limited to single-center studies. Advantages potentially include less morbidity due to smaller incisions as well as shorter operating room times. Many report using endovascular therapies even with hard signs of injury. Long-term results are limited by a lack of long-term follow-up but, in general, suggest that these techniques produce acceptable outcomes. The adoption of these techniques may be limited by resource and surgeon availability.

Conclusions:

The use of endovascular therapies in trauma has gained acceptance despite not yet having a place in official guidelines.

Diagnostic workup and endovascular treatment of popliteal artery trauma

Although management paradigms for certain arterial trauma, such as aortic injuries, have moved towards an endovascular approach, the application of endovascular techniques for the treatment of peripheral arterial injuries continues to be debated. In the realm of peripheral vascular trauma, popliteal arterial injuries remain a devastating condition with significant rates of limb loss. Expedient management is essential and surgical revascularization has been the gold standard. Initial clinical assessment of vascular injury is aided by readily available imaging techniques such as duplex ultrasonography and high resolution computed tomographic angiography. Conventional catheter based angiography, however, remain the gold standard in the determination of vascular injury. There are limited data examining the outcomes of endovascular techniques to address popliteal arterial injuries. In this review, we examine the imaging modalities and current approaches and data regarding endovascular techniques for the management popliteal arterial trauma.

Femoral vessel injury by a nonlethal weapon projectile

Rubber projectiles are used as an alternative to metal bullets owing to their lower morbidity and mortality rate. There are few reports of vascular lesions of extremities caused by rubber projectiles in the literature. The authors report the case of a 37-year-old man who was the victim of a penetrating injury to the left thigh with a rubber projectile. He reported only pain at the site of the injury; pulses were decreased in the affected limb. After arteriography confirmed an injury to the superficial femoral artery, he underwent an arterial and venous femorofemoral bypass using a reversed contralateral saphenous vein.

Triple vessel injury with single penetrating trauma to the lower extremity requiring popliteal to posterior tibial artery bypass

This is a case report describing the delayed presentation of injury to all three lower extremity infrapopliteal arteries after a 34 year old male sustained multiple gunshot wounds, including one to his left lower extremity. As part of his initial assessment, ankle brachial index was performed and was found to be abnormal. Further work up for this was delayed due to need for emergent trauma laparotomy. After this procedure, more detailed evaluation with CT angiography of the extremity injury was performed. Though imaging indicated adequate perfusion of the lower extremity, serial neurovascular examination revealed inadequate perfusion. The patient required arterial reconstruction and fasciotomies. This case demonstrates the need for continued surveillance of extremity perfusion in atypical trauma cases when index of suspicion suggests the degree of injury may be worse than initial work up may indicate.

Endovascular treatment of penetrating arterial trauma with stent grafts

Abstract. Background: The endovascular management of arterial injuries has resulted in reduced operating time, blood loss, hospital mortality, lower incidence of sepsis, and decrease in mortality rates. For penetrating trauma, however, the benefits of endovascular therapy are questionable. Patients and methods: Data were obtained by retrospective analysis of electronic medical records. All patients with vascular trauma seeking care at our institution from January 2010 to December 2015 were reviewed. A total of 223 vascular trauma patients were enrolled. Of these, 18 patients (8 %) were treated with endovascular techniques. The data related to clinical presentation, patient characteristics, technical aspects of the treatment, and follow-up were analysed. Results: The mean patient age was 35.4 ± 17.8 years, 94 % were male. The mean injury severity score was 10.4 ± 2.5. The most commonly observed trauma mechanism was a gunshot in 10 cases (55 %), followed by lesions provoked by arterial catheter misplacement in five cases (27 %), and stab wounds in three cases (16.6 %). The main injury site was the subclavian artery, accounting for eight cases (44 %), followed by the superficial femoral artery and the tibiofibular trunk in two cases, respectively (18 %). The anterior tibial, fibular artery, axillary, common carotid, superior mesenteric, and profunda femoris were each affected once. Arteriovenous fistula was detected in nine cases (50 %), pseudoaneurysms in nine cases (50 %), and short occlusion in two cases (11 %). The mean follow-up duration was 753 days. The primary patency rate was 92.3 and 61.5 % after one and two years, respectively. The survival rate was 94.4 % after one and two years. Infection of the stents or limb amputations were not identified at follow-up. Conclusions: The endovascular treatment of penetrating arterial injuries with covered stents is feasible. However, the criteria used to choose the best method must be individualized.

Keywords: Trauma, endovascular, stent graft, gunshot, stab wound

Endovascular management for peripheral arterial trauma: The new norm?

BACKGROUND

Endovascular therapy is well studied in atraumatic conditions; and there appears to be a growing interest in its application to traumatic injuries. The objective of this study is to compare open and endovascular techniques in the management of peripheral arterial trauma.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center sustaining injuries to the subclavian, axillary, superficial femoral, and popliteal arteries. Demographics, surgical interventions, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated in patients requiring open or endovascular repair between 2009 and 2015.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients with 70 total arterial injuries were identified. There were 10 subclavian, 14 axillary, 15 superficial femoral, and 31 popliteal artery injuries. Endovascular (n=20) compared to open repairs (n=50) were more commonly performed: by vascular surgeons (90% vs. 54%, p=0.01); in older patients (median age: 38 years vs. 25, p=0.01); primarily involving upper extremity injuries (60% vs. 24%, p=0.01). Furthermore, endovascular repairs less commonly required fasciotomy (15% vs. 46%, p=0.03) and trended towards lower transfusion requirements (50% vs. 77%, p=0.06). Patients undergoing open repair had lower pre-hospital systolic blood pressures (110 vs. 120, p=0.03) and lower initial hematocrit (31.5 vs. 36.2, p=0.02). However, outcomes between groups were trending higher in the endovascular group with respect to limb salvage rates at discharge (94% vs. 89%), median length of stay (14days vs. 9), and median follow-up (288days vs. 92) compared to the open group, but the data were not statistically significant. There was increasing utilization of endovascular repair over time (7% of total procedures in 2009; 50% in 2014).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, endovascular and open techniques were not statistically different in early outcomes. Endovascular therapy appears to provide some advantage when it comes to: challenging anatomy, decreasing blood product utilization, and minimizing physiologic derangement. However, patients with injuries resulting in free hemorrhage or significant external blood loss may still be best served with open repair. Despite this, given the increasing use of endovascular techniques, close collaboration is needed between trauma and endovascular specialists to properly select the optimal management for patients with peripheral arterial trauma.

The elimination of anastomosis in open trauma vascular reconstruction: A novel technique using an animal model

BACKGROUND

The standard approach to vascular trauma involves arterial exposure and reconstruction using either a vein or polytetrafluoroethylene graft. We have developed a novel technique to repairing arterial injuries by deploying commercially available vascular stents through an open approach, thus eliminating the need for suture anastomosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, stent deployment time (SDT), and stent patency of this technique in a ewe vascular injury model.

METHODS

After proximal and distal control, a 2-cm superficial femoral arterial segment was resected in 8 Dorper ewes to simulate an arterial injury. Two stay sutures were placed in the 3- and 9-o'clock positions of the transected arterial ends to prevent further retraction. Ten milliliters of 10-IU/mL heparinized saline was flushed proximally and distally. An arteriotomy was then created 2.5 cm from the transected distal end through which we deployed Gore Viabahn stents with a 20% oversize and at least 1-cm overlap with the native vessel on either end. The arteriotomy was then closed with 3 (1) interrupted 6-0 Prolene sutures. The ewes were fed acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg daily. Duplex was performed at 2 months postoperatively to evaluate stent patency. SDT was defined as time from stay suture placement to arteriotomy closure.

RESULTS

The 8 ewes weighed a mean (SD) of 34.4 (4.3) kg. The mean (SD) superficial femoral arterial was 4.3 (0.6) mm. Six 5 mm × 5 cm and two 6 mm × 5 cm Gore Viabahn stents were deployed. The mean (SD) SDT was 34 (19) minutes, with a trend toward less time with increasing experience (SDTmax, 60 minutes; SDTmin, 10 minutes). Duplex performed at 2 months postoperatively showed stent patency in five of eight stents. There was an association between increasing SDT and stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Open deployment of commercially available vascular stents to treat vascular injuries is a conceptually sound and technically feasible alternative to standard open repair. Larger studies are needed to refine this technique and minimize stent complications, which are likely technical in nature.