Accuracy of Published Indications for Predicting Use of Damage Control During Laparotomy for Trauma

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma: Clinical protocol for damage-control resuscitation for the adult trauma patient

ABSTRACT

Damage-control resuscitation in the care of critically injured trauma patients aims to limit blood loss and prevent and treat coagulopathy by combining early definitive hemorrhage control, hypotensive resuscitation, and early and balanced use of blood products (hemostatic resuscitation) and the use of other hemostatic agents. This clinical protocol has been developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for optimal damage-control resuscitation in the care of trauma patients with hemorrhage.

The open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery: comprehensive, expert, narrative review

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen is an innovation that greatly improved surgical understanding of damage control, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, viscera and enteric fistula care, and abdominal wall reconstruction. This article provides an evidence-informed, expert, comprehensive narrative review of the open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery.

METHODS

A group of 12 international trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery experts were invited to review current literature and important concepts surrounding the open abdomen.

RESULTS

The open abdomen may be classified using validated systems developed by a working group in 2009 and modified by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome-The Abdominal Compartment Society in 2013. It may be indicated in major trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, vascular surgical emergencies, and severe acute pancreatitis; to facilitate second look laparotomy or avoid or treat abdominal compartment syndrome; and when the abdominal wall cannot be safely closed. Temporary abdominal closure and staged abdominal reconstruction methods include a mesh/sheet, transabdominal wall dynamic fascial traction, negative pressure wound therapy, and hybrid negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic fascial traction. This last method likely has the highest primary fascial closure rates. Direct peritoneal resuscitation is currently an experimental strategy developed to improve primary fascial closure rates and reduce complications in those with an open abdomen. Primary fascial closure rates may be improved by early return to the operating room; limiting use of crystalloid fluids during the surgical interval; and preventing and/or treating intra-abdominal hypertension, enteric fistulae, and intra-abdominal collections after surgery. The majority of failures of primary fascial closure and enteroatmospheric fistula formation may be prevented using effective temporary abdominal closure techniques, providing appropriate resuscitation fluids and nutritional support, and closing the abdomen as early as possible.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent stages of the innovation of the open abdomen will likely involve the design and conduct of prospective studies to evaluate appropriate indications for its use and effectiveness and safety of the above components of open abdomen management.

Major surgery leads to a proinflammatory phenotype: Differential gene expression following a laparotomy

BACKGROUND

The trauma of surgery is a neglected area of research. Our aim was to examine the differential expression of genes of stress, metabolism and inflammation in the major organs of a rat following a laparotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Anaesthetised Sprague-Dawley rats were randomised into baseline, 6-hr and 3-day groups (n = 6 each), catheterised and laparotomy performed. Animals were sacrificed at each timepoint and tissues collected for gene and protein analysis. Blood stress hormones, cytokines, endothelial injury markers and coagulation were measured.

RESULTS

Stress hormone corticosterone significantly increased and was accompanied by significant increases in inflammatory cytokines, endothelial markers, increased neutrophils (6-hr), higher lactate (3-days), and coagulopathy. In brain, there were significant increases in M1 muscarinic (31-fold) and α-1A-adrenergic (39-fold) receptor expression. Cortical expression of metabolic genes increased ∼3-fold, and IL-1β by 6-fold at 3-days. Cardiac β-1-adrenergic receptor expression increased up to 8.4-fold, and M2 and M1 muscarinic receptors by 2 to 4-fold (6-hr). At 3-days, cardiac mitochondrial gene expression (Tfam, Mtco3) and inflammation (IL-1α, IL-4, IL-6, MIP-1α, MCP-1) were significantly elevated. Haemodynamics remained stable. In liver, there was a dramatic suppression of adrenergic and muscarinic receptor expression (up to 90%) and increased inflammation. Gut also underwent autonomic suppression with 140-fold increase in IL-1β expression (3-days).

CONCLUSIONS

A single laparotomy led to a surgical-induced proinflammatory phenotype involving neuroendocrine stress, cortical excitability, immune activation, metabolic changes and coagulopathy. The pervasive nature of systemic and tissue inflammation was noteworthy. There is an urgent need for new therapies to prevent hyper-inflammation and restore homeostasis following major surgery.

Variation in use of damage control laparotomy for trauma by trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia

Background

It is unknown how frequently damage control (DC) laparotomy is used across trauma centers in different countries. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to study variations in use of the procedure and predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy.

Methods

A self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia was conducted. The survey collected information about trauma center and program characteristics. It also asked how often the trauma program director estimated DC laparotomy was performed on injured patients at that center on average over the last year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of a higher reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy.

Results

Of the 366 potentially eligible trauma centers sent the survey, 199 (51.8%) trauma program directors or leaders responded [United States = 156 (78.4%), Canada = 26 (13.1%), and Australasia = 17 (8.5%)]. The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. DC laparotomy was used more frequently in level-1 than level-2 or -3 trauma centers. Further, high-volume level-1 centers used DC laparotomy significantly more often than lower volume level-1 centers (p = 0.02). Nearly half (48.4%) of high-volume volume level-1 trauma centers reported using the procedure at least once weekly. Significant adjusted predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy included country of origin [odds ratio (OR) for the United States vs. Canada = 7.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–40.27], level-1 verification status (OR = 6.02; 95% CI 2.01–18.06), and the assessment of a higher number of severely injured (Injury Severity Scale score > 15) patients (OR per-100 patients = 1.62; 95% CI 1.20–2.18) and patients with penetrating injuries (OR per-5% increase = 1.27; 95% CI 1.01–1.58) in the last year.

Conclusions

The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. Those centers that most need to evaluate the benefit-to-risk ratio of using DC laparotomy in different scenarios may include high-volume, level-1 trauma centers, particularly those that often manage penetrating injuries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00396-7.

Damage control surgical management of combined small and large bowel injuries in penetrating trauma: Are ostomies still pertinent?

Hollow viscus injuries represent a significant portion of overall lesions sustained during penetrating trauma. Currently, isolated small or large bowel injuries are commonly managed via primary anastomosis in patients undergoing definitive laparotomy or deferred anastomosis in patients requiring damage control surgery. The traditional surgical dogma of ostomy has proven to be unnecessary and, in many instances, actually increases morbidity. The aim of this article is to delineate the experience obtained in the management of combined hollow viscus injuries of patients suffering from penetrating trauma. We sought out to determine if primary and/or deferred bowel injury repair via anastomosis is the preferred surgical course in patients suffering from combined small and large bowel penetrating injuries. Our experience shows that more than 90% of all combined penetrating bowel injuries can be managed via primary or deferred anastomosis, even in the most severe cases requiring the application of damage control principles. Applying this strategy, the overall need for an ostomy (primary or deferred) could be reduced to less than 10%.

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.