Abdominal packing for surgically uncontrollable hemorrhage in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Damage control surgery: old concepts and new indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While the principles of damage control surgery - rapid hemorrhage and contamination control with correction of physiologic derangements followed by delayed definitive reconstruction - have remained consistent, forms of damage control intervention have evolved and proliferated dramatically. This review aims to provide a historic perspective of the early trends of damage control surgery as well as an updated understanding of its current state and future trends.

RECENT FINDINGS

Physiologically depleted patients in shock due to both traumatic and nontraumatic causes are often treated with damage control laparotomy and surgical principles. Damage control surgery has also been shown to be safe and effective in thoracic and orthopedic injuries. Damage control resuscitation is used in conjunction with surgical source control to restore patient physiology and prevent further collapse. The overuse of damage control laparotomy, however, is associated with increased morbidity and complications. With advancing technology, catheter- and stent-based endovascular modalities are playing a larger role in the resuscitation and definitive care of patients.

SUMMARY

Optimal outcome in the care of the most severely injured patients requires judicious use of damage control surgery supplemented by advancements in resuscitation and surgical adjuncts.

Current treatment strategies for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) represents one of the most challenging emergencies in surgery. Open repair (OR) is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality and has not been reduced significantly over the last decade. The introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and its meanwhile common use in the treatment of rAAA has raised the demand for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in order to resolve a potential superiority of either OR or EVAR.

PURPOSE

This review discusses the current treatment strategies in rAAA repair including diagnostics, peri-operative management and results of OR and EVAR, focussing on RCTs comparing both modalities.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality after OR and EVAR shows no significant difference in published RCTs. In particular with respect to OR, 30-day mortality was much lower than anticipated throughout all RCTs ranging from 18 to 37 %. EVAR for rAAA resulted in reduced in-hospital stay. Limitations of all except one RCT are low patient recruitment and exclusion of haemodynamically unstable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

OR and EVAR need to be provided for rAAA. Despite lacking evidence, EVAR is the first choice treatment in experienced high-volume vascular centres. Low mortality rates in all RCTs raise the question if aortic surgery should be centralised.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the state of play

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains a challenging problem: 2,410 cases were treated in Germany in 2010. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm should be suspected in patients over age 50 who complain of pain in the abdomen or back and in whom examination reveals a pulsatile abdominal mass. The incidence of hospitalization for rAAA is 12 per 100,000 persons over age 65 per year (statistics for Germany, 2010), and rAAA carries an overall mortality of 80%.

METHODS

The current state of knowledge of rAAA was surveyed in a selective review of pertinent literature retrieved by an electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with the keywords "abdominal aortic aneurysm," "ruptured," "open repair," and "endovascular." Publications in English or German up to and including March 2012 were considered, among them the Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (1).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Recent reports show that the treatment of rAAA is still fraught with high mortality and high perioperative morbidity. Improvement is needed. It would be advisable for the care of rAAA to be centralized in specialized vascular centers implementing defined treatment pathways. Systematic screening, too, would be beneficial. An increasing number of reports suggest that endovascular treatment with stent prostheses improves outcomes; more definitive evidence on this matter will come from prospective, randomized trials that are now in progress.

Damage Control in the Management of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Preliminary Results

Background: This study compared damage control measures (DCM), including operative techniques (DCO) and resuscitative measures (DCR), with standard treatment (ST) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). Methods: Historical cohort study methodology was used to evaluate outcomes for rAAA repairs related to DCM or ST over a 74-month period at a level I trauma center. Results: Of 28 repairs, 13 (46.4%) were DCM. Compared to ST patients, DCM patients had a lower mean preoperative BP (64.6 vs. 83.2 mm Hg, P = .03) and greater intraoperative blood loss (4.6 vs. 2.1 liters, P = .033). Patients who had both DCR and DCO (DCO & DCR) received more plasma (6.8 vs 2.6 units, P = .039) and less crystalloid (2.8 vs 10.5 liters, P = .005) than those receiving DCO only. A modest decrease in mortality was seen in the DCO & DCR group compared to DCO only. No DCO-related graft infections were observed. Conclusion: DCR use may prove beneficial in the management of rAAA.

Intra-abdominal packing for uncontrollable haemorrhage during ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Intra-abdominal packing is a valuable adjunct in patients with abdominal trauma and uncontrollable bleeding but few data exist regarding early and late outcome associated with this technique in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

Interrogation of a prospective vascular surgical database identified 23 patients (22 men; median age 69, range 59-82, years) with ruptured AAA who required intra-abdominal packing for control of coagulopathic haemorrhage after insertion of an aortic graft between January 1982 and December 2003. Co-morbidity, operative and outcome data were retrieved.

RESULTS

Haemostasis was achieved and packs were removed within 48 h in 20 patients. In those patients who had a graft inserted, the peri-operative mortality rate was 12 of 23 (52%) patients (vs. 172 of 455 (38%) patients who were not packed, NS). Three (13%) patients developed early intra-abdominal sepsis, which was universally fatal: graft-enteric fistula, intra-abdominal abscess with necrotizing fasciitis of the abdominal wound, and infected retroperitoneal haematoma. Two of 11 (18%) survivors developed late graft-related infective complications: major aortic graft infection at 6 months and symptomatic infected para-anastomotic aortic false aneurysm at 39 months. Early and late intra-abdominal infective complications were significantly more common in patients who were packed than in those who were not (packed: five of 23, 22% vs. non-packed: five of 455, 1%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate that intra-abdominal packing in coagulopathic patients with ruptured AAA can achieve an acceptable survival rate. However, this technique may be associated with an increased incidence of early and late intra-abdominal infective complications.