Blunt hepatic injury: minimal intervention is the policy of treatment

Liver Trauma: Until When We Have to Delay Surgery? A Review

Liver involvement after abdominal blunt trauma must be expected, and in up to 30% of cases, spleen, kidney, and pancreas injuries may coexist. Whenever hemodynamics conditions do not contraindicate the overcoming of the ancient dogma according to which exploratory laparotomy should be performed after every major abdominal trauma, a CT scan has to clarify the liver lesions so as to determine the optimal management strategy. Except for complete vascular avulsion, no liver trauma grade precludes nonoperative management. Every attempt to treat the injured liver by avoiding a strong surgical approach may be considered. Each time, a nonoperative management (NOM) consisting of a basic “wait and see” attitude combined with systemic support and blood replacement are inadequate. Embolization should be considered to stop the bleeding. Percutaneous drainage of collections, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with papilla sphincterotomy or stent placement and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) may avoid, or at least delay, surgical reconstruction or resection until systemic and hepatic inflammatory remodeling are resolved. The pathophysiological principle sustaining these leanings is based on the opportunity to limit the further release of cell debris fragments acting as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and the following stress response associated with the consequent immune suppression after trauma. The main goal will be a faster recovery combined with limited cell death of the liver through the ischemic events that may directly follow the trauma, exacerbated by hemostatic procedures and surgery, in order to reduce the gross distortion of a regenerated liver.

Depacked patients who underwent a shortened perihepatic packing for severe blunt liver trauma have a high survival rate: 20 years of experience in a level I trauma center

INTRODUCTION

Non-operative management is currently the preferred approach in blunt liver trauma, including high grade liver lesions. However, hemodynamic instability imposes the need for an emergency laparotomy, with a perihepatic packing (PHP) to control liver bleeding in most cases. Our retrospective study aimed to assess the outcomes of liver trauma patients who underwent a shortened PHP.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent PHP for blunt liver trauma from 1998 to 2019 in our Level I trauma center were included in the study. Unstable patients with severe liver trauma were transferred to the operating room without any delay, and a collective decision was made to perform abbreviated laparotomy to pack the liver. Demographics, perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, and mortality were retrospectively collected, and survivors and deceased patients were compared with a paired t-test.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients of 206 patients admitted with severe liver injuries were treated with shortened PHP. Thirty-four (57.6%) patients died, including 26 (76.5%) within the first 24 h. Twelve (20.3%) patients had a selective hepatic embolization and eight (13.6%) had an extrahepatic embolization. Forty-eight patients had an extra abdominal associated injury. This was not a predictive factor of mortality. The removal of packing was performed in 24 patients within 72 h after laparotomy, with an 80% survival rate in these patients.

CONCLUSION

Shortened PHP is an effective strategy for controlling liver bleeding in severe hepatic trauma. The mortality rate of these patients is high, but after the removal of packing, the survival is good.

Surgical management and outcome of blunt major liver injuries: experience of damage control laparotomy with perihepatic packing in one trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aimed to assess the clinical experience and outcome of damage control laparotomy with perihepatic packing in the management of blunt major liver injuries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 1998 to December 2006, 58 patients of blunt major liver injury, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) equal or greater than III, were operated with perihepatic packing at our institute. Demographic data, intra-operative findings, operative procedures, adjunctive managements and outcome were reviewed. To determine whether there was statistical difference between the survivor and non-survivor groups, data were compared by using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, either Pearson's chi-square test or with Yates continuity correction for contingency tables, and results were considered statistically significant if p<0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 58 patients, 20 (35%) were classified as AAST-OIS grade III, 24 (41%) as grade IV, and 14 (24%) as grade V. At laparotomy, depending on the severity of injuries, all 58 patients underwent various liver-related procedures and perihepatic packing. The more frequent liver-related procedures included debridement hepatectomy (n=21), hepatorrhaphy (n=19), selective hepatic artery ligation (n=11) and 7 patients required post-laparotomy hepatic transarterial embolization. Of the 58 patients, 28 survived and 30 died with a 52% mortality rate. Of the 30 deaths, uncontrolled liver bleeding in 24-h caused 25 deaths and delayed sepsis caused residual 5 deaths. The mortality rate versus OIS was grade III: 30% (6/20), grade IV: 54% (13/24), and grade V: 79% (11/14), respectively. On univariate analysis, the significant predictors of mortality were OIS grade (p=0.019), prolonged initial prothrombin time (PT) (p=0.004), active partial thromboplastin time (APTT) (p<0.0001) and decreased platelet count (p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rate of surgical blunt major liver injuries remains high even with perihepatic packing. Since prolonged initial PT, APTT and decreased platelet count were associated with high risk of mortality, we advocate combination of damage control resuscitation with damage control laparotomy in these major liver injuries.

Management of liver trauma in adults

The liver is one of the most commonly injured organs in abdominal trauma. Recent advancements in imaging studies and enhanced critical care monitoring strategies have shifted the paradigm for the management of liver injuries. Nonoperative management of both low- and high-grade injuries can be successful in hemodynamically stable patients. Direct suture ligation of bleeding parenchymal vessels, total vascular isolation with repair of venous injuries, and the advent of damage control surgery have all improved outcomes in the hemodynamically unstable patient population. Anatomical resection of the liver and use of atriocaval shunt are rarely indicated.

Management of liver trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt and penetrating liver trauma is common and often presents major diagnostic and management problems.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to determine the current consensus on investigation and management strategies.

RESULTS

The liver is the most frequently injured organ following abdominal trauma. Immediate assessment with ultrasound has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage in the resuscitation room, but computerised tomography remains the gold standard investigation. Nonoperative management is preferred in stable patients but laparotomy is indicated in unstable patients. Damage control techniques such as perihepatic packing, hepatotomy plus direct suture, and resectional debridement are recommended. Major complex surgical procedures such as anatomical resection or atriocaval shunting are now thought to be redundant in the emergency setting. Packing is also recommended for the inexperienced surgeon to allow control and stabilisation prior to transfer to a tertiary centre. Interventional radiological techniques are becoming more widely used, particularly in patients who are being managed nonoperatively or have been stabilised by perihepatic packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of liver injuries has evolved significantly throughout the last two decades. In the absence of other abdominal injuries, operative management can usually be avoided. Patients with more complex injuries or subsequent complications should be transferred to a specialist centre to optimise final outcome.

Management of liver trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt and penetrating liver trauma is common and often presents major diagnostic and management problems.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to determine the current consensus on investigation and management strategies.

RESULTS

The liver is the most frequently injured organ following abdominal trauma. Immediate assessment with ultrasound has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage in the resuscitation room, but computerised tomography remains the gold standard investigation. Nonoperative management is preferred in stable patients but laparotomy is indicated in unstable patients. Damage control techniques such as perihepatic packing, hepatotomy plus direct suture, and resectional debridement are recommended. Major complex surgical procedures such as anatomical resection or atriocaval shunting are now thought to be redundant in the emergency setting. Packing is also recommended for the inexperienced surgeon to allow control and stabilisation prior to transfer to a tertiary centre. Interventional radiological techniques are becoming more widely used, particularly in patients who are being managed nonoperatively or have been stabilised by perihepatic packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of liver injuries has evolved significantly throughout the last two decades. In the absence of other abdominal injuries, operative management can usually be avoided. Patients with more complex injuries or subsequent complications should be transferred to a specialist centre to optimise final outcome.

[Surgical treatment of liver trauma: resection--when and how?]

Liver resection as an emergency procedure in patients with liver injury due to abdominal trauma has become a rare procedure. In most cases liver trauma can be managed conservatively. Currently surgery is only indicated in hemodynamically instable patients and in cases of progredient haematoma where the main aim is control of bleeding. Anatomical liver resection should be avoided and may only be performed in cases of total vascular avulsion. Debridement of devascularized tissue can also be carried out in terms of an atypical liver resection. This article elucidates the current indications for liver resection after traumatic liver injury.

[Liver and sport]

The liver is a vital organ and plays a central role in energy exchange, protein synthesis as well as the elimination of waste products from the body. Acute and chronic injury may disturb a variety of liver functions to different degrees. Over the last three decades, the effects of physical activity and competitive sport on the liver have been described by various investigators. These include viral hepatitis and drug-induced liver disorders. Herein, we review acute and chronic liver diseases potentially caused by sport. Team physicians, trainers and others, responsible for the health of athletes, should be familiar with the risk factors, clinical features, and consequences of liver diseases that occur in sports.

Emergency liver transplantation following severe liver trauma

Liver trauma is a major cause of mortality after major blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. The need for life-saving emergency hepatectomy and liver transplantation is extremely rare. We report the management of 2 patients who required urgent liver transplantation for liver trauma. One patient developed hepatic failure following global ischemia after a gunshot injury. The second patient developed a severe postreperfusion injury following removal of a perihepatic pack after blunt abdominal trauma. We highlight the difficulties in the management of severe liver trauma with an emphasis on the clinical features, radiological investigations, and surgical treatment of these complex patients.

[Current treatment of hepatic trauma]

The therapeutic and diagnostic approach of liver trauma injuries (by extension, of abdominal trauma) has evolved remarkably in the last decades. The current non-surgical treatment in the vast majority of liver injuries is supported by the accumulated experience and optimal results in the current series. It is considered that the non-surgical treatment of liver injuries has a current rate of success of 83-100%, with an associated morbidity of 5-42%. The haemodynamic stability of the patient will determine the applicability of the non-surgical treatment. Arteriography with angioembolisation constitutes a key technical tool in the context of liver trauma. Patients with haemodynamic instability will need an urgent operation and can benefit from abdominal packing techniques, damage control and post-operative arteriography. The present review attempts to contribute to the current, global and practical management in the care of liver trauma.

Multidisciplinary approach for the management of complex hepatic injuries AAST-OIS grades IV-V: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Complex hepatic injuries grades IV-V are highly lethal. The objective of this study is to assess the multidisciplinary approach for their management and to evaluate if survival could be improved with this approach.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective 54-month study of all patients sustaining hepatic injuries grades IV-V managed operatively at a Level I Trauma Center.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

survival.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

univariate and stepwise logistic regression.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients sustained penetrating (47/63%) and blunt (28/37%) injuries. Seven (9%) patients underwent emergency department thoracotomy with a mortality of 100%. Out of the 75 patients, 52 (69%) sustained grade IV, and 23 (31%) grade V. The estimated blood loss was 3,539+/-3,040 ml. The overall survival was 69%, adjusted survival excluding patients requiring emergency department thoracotomy was 76%. Survival stratified to injury grade: grade IV 42/52-81%, grade V 10/23-43%. Mortality grade IV versus V injuries (p < 0.002; RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.52-5.70). Risk factors for mortality: packed red blood cells transfused in operating room (p=0.024), estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), dysryhthmia (p < 0.0001), acidosis (p = 0.051), hypothermia (p = 0.04). The benefit of angiography and angioembolization indicated: 12% mortality (2/17) among those that received it versus a 36% mortality (21/58) among those that did not (p = 0.074; RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.08-1.25). Stepwise logistic regression identified as significant independent predictors of outcome: estimated blood loss (p= 0.0017; RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08-1.41) and number of packed red blood cells transfused in the operating room (p = 0.0358; RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01-1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The multidisciplinary approach to the management of these severe grades of injuries appears to improve survival in these highly lethal injuries. A prospective multi-institutional study is needed to validate this approach.

Liver injuries--improved results with a formal protocol including angiography

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesised that a formal treatment protocol for liver injuries including angiography would increase the non-operative management (NOM) rate and would be efficient as an adjunct to damage control surgery.

METHODS

During the 4-year period from 1 August 2000, a total of 138 adult patients with liver injuries were admitted to the largest trauma centre in Norway and prospectively included in the institutional trauma registry. On 1 August 2002, a protocol mandating angiography in all NOM patients with OIS grades 3-5 liver injuries and after packing of the liver was implemented. All patients admitted during the subsequent 2-year period (group 2) were compared with the previous 2 years as historic controls (group 1).

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were included in group 1 and 59 in group 2. The groups were statistically comparable, both with a mean ISS of 31. Patients selected for NOM increased from 28 (51%) to 45 (76%) (p<0.05), without increasing failure rate, liver-related complications, mortality or transfusion rate. Angiography was performed in 26 patients in group 2 (44%). Only nine patients underwent embolisation (35%), and five of these were in the NOM group. Angiography was negative in the eight NOM stable patients with OIS grade 3 injury.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a formal NOM protocol decreased total laparotomy rate and seemed to improve patient outcome without jeopardising patient safety. Surprisingly few of the patients undergoing angiography required embolisation. Angiography is not indicated in stable OIS grade 3 liver injuries, and the protocol in our institution has been adjusted accordingly. AE seems to be a valuable adjunct to DCS with packing of liver injuries.

Immediate postoperative angiographic embolization after damage control surgery for liver injury: report of a case

A multimodality strategy, including damage control and angioembolization techniques, has been reported to reduce the mortality associated with surgery for complex blunt hepatic injuries. However, the indications for angiographic evaluation and embolization in patients who require surgery for hepatic injury remain unclear. We report a case of blunt hepatic injury requiring emergency laparotomy, which we treated by damage control surgery because of an inaccessible major venous injury and the fact that coagulopathy was stopping hemostasis. The decision to perform immediate postoperative angiography was based on the hemorrhagic response to Pringle's maneuver and its release after perihepatic packing during surgery. Hepatic angiography revealed extravasation from a branch of the middle hepatic artery, which was embolized successfully. Although the definitive indications for immediate postoperative angioembolization for hepatic injury have not been established, the hemorrhagic response to Pringle's maneuver and its release after perihepatic packing during damage control surgery is an indication for immediate postoperative angioembolization.

Predictors of outcome in patients requiring surgery for liver trauma

INTRODUCTION

Severe bleeding from liver injury is one of the major causes of mortality in patients with abdominal trauma. The study was undertaken to assess factors that influence outcome following liver trauma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study of patients with liver injury treated in one surgical ward at King Edward VIII Hospital over a 7-year period (from 1998 to 2004). Data collected included demographics, intra-operative findings, operative management and outcome.

RESULTS

Of a total of 478 patients with abdominal trauma, 105 (22%) were found to have liver injuries, of whom only 7 were female. Their mean age was 27.81+/-10.33 years. Injuries were due to firearms (70), stabs (26) and blunt trauma (9). Nineteen patients presented with shock (systolic BP<or=90 mmHg). All patients underwent laparotomy. Delay before surgery was <or=6h in 58 patients and >6h in 47 patients. Forty patients required ICU management (38%) and the mean ICU stay was 6.55+/-5.65 days. Twenty patients (19%) needed a re-laparotomy for various reasons. The complication rate was 37% and the mortality rate was 20% (23% for firearms, 44% for blunt trauma and 4% for stabs). The mortality rate in patients with shock was 58% compared to 12% in those who were not shocked (p<0.0001). Mortality rate was 2, 23 and 63% for Injury Severity Score (ISS)<or=9, 10-20 and >20, respectively (group 1 versus group 2 p=0.015; group 1 versus group 3 p<0.0001 and group 2 versus group 3 p=0.001). Mortality rates for delay <or=6h and delay >6h were 28 and 9%, respectively (p=0.008). Associated injuries led to a higher mortality (3% versus 27%; p=0.006). Hospital stay was 11.27+/-12.09 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver injuries occurred in 22% of abdominal injuries. Injury mechanism, delay before surgery, shock on admission, grade of injury, associated injury and ISS are significantly associated with outcome.

Current advances in the surgical approach to abdominal trauma

The management of abdominal injury has changed dramatically during the past two decades. This review examines the historic perspectives and recent developments of diagnosis and treatment of liver injuries, splenic injuries, and pancreatic injuries. The incorporation of non-operative management for liver injuries has had a very positive effect on mortality. Likewise, splenic conservative therapy is routinely used. The early treatment of pancreatic injury has changed very little; however, the ability to recognize these difficult injuries has improved with higher quality CT scanning. The authors present their preferred treatment for these three common types of abdominal solid organ injury and present an illustrative case example.

The CT risk factors for the need of operative treatment in initially hemodynamically stable patients after blunt hepatic trauma

BACKGROUND

Most hemodynamically stable blunt hepatic trauma (BHT) patients are treated nonoperatively with a reported successful rate exceeding 80%. It is current clinical consensus that hemodynamic stability is the only determinant for a patient to be managed nonoperatively. However, conversion to operative treatment was found in around 10% of these patients.

METHODS

There were 214 computed tomography (CT) scans of hemodynamically stable patients with main or sole BHT studied. CT findings including injury severity grading, contrast extravasation, the amount of hemoperitoneum, the degree of maceration, the depth of laceration, the size of hematoma, and the involvement of great vessels were analyzed to determine risk factors leading to the need of operative treatment.

RESULTS

Intraperitoneal contrast extravasation, hemoperitoneum in six compartments, maceration >2 segments, high Mirvis' CT grade as well as American Association for the Surgery of Trauma injury scale, laceration > or =6 cm in depth, and porta hepatis involvement occurred significantly more frequently (p < or = 0.001, respectively) in patients who needed operative treatment. Logistic regression analysis identified "intraperitoneal contrast extravasation" (RR = 12.5, 95% CI: 7.8-20.0; p < 0.001) and "hemoperitoneum in six compartments" (RR = 22, 95% CI: 9.7-49.4; p < 0.001) to independently contribute to the need of operative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intraperitoneal contrast extravasation and hemoperitoneum in six compartments on CT scan both indicate massive or active hemorrhage and should be regarded as high risk for the need of operation in hemodynamically stable patients after BHT. Patients with low risk profile can be successfully treated with nonoperative modalities.

Non-operative management of blunt hepatic injury in multiply injured adult patients

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management of blunt liver trauma has now evolved into a common practice especially since abdominal CT has enabled a more precise evaluation of these patients.

CLINICAL MATERIAL

Sixty-three patients, haemodynamically stable, were eligible for the study and enrolled into the protocol of non-operative management of blunt hepatic injury. Fifty-two (82.5%) patients were successfully managed non-operatively (non-operative group). The remaining 11 (17.5%) patients failed the non-operative management and underwent exploratory laparotomy (laparotomy group).

RESULTS

Patients managed non-operatively tended to be younger than patients managed operatively (p < 0.05). The mean values of ISS were 16.2 +/- 6.1, 26.1 +/- 8.5, p < 0.001, in the non-operative and laparotomy groups, respectively. Stay in the ICU was significantly decreased in the non-operative patients (p < 0.001). Patients who had a laparotomy significantly increased requirement for blood transfusion (p < 0.001). Six (9.5%) patients managed non-operatively developed complications; perihepatic collections were observed in two patients, an urinoma in one patient and chest infection in three patients. Perihepatic collections and urinoma were successfully drained percutaneously by CT guidance and no further treatment was required. The mortality rate of the entire series of patients was 4.8% (three patients); one death could be related to hepatic injury itself and the other two deaths were attributed to non-hepatic causes. No deaths occurred in the non-operative group.

CONCLUSION

Non-operative management should be the initial approach to all patients with blunt liver injuries if haemodynamic stability can be ensured. When continued bleeding can be safely ruled out, a period of close monitoring in the ICU is warranted.

Traumatismes graves fermés du foie : à la recherche de critères décisionnels pour le choix du traitement non-opératoire. À propos d'une série de 88 cas

AIM OF THE STUDY

To analyze the predictive value of computed tomography (CT) and initial physiologic and laboratory data findings in the immediate operative (OP) or non-operative (NOP) management of blunt liver injury (BL).

METHODS

Eighty-eight BL, grade III (51), grade IV (28) and nine grade V (9), aged 26.2 years (16-75) were identified. Hemoperitoneum on CT, hemodynamic status, physiologic and laboratory data <24 hours or preoperative (transfusion, vascular filling) and follow-up >48 hours were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data of 71/88 (80%) NOP and 17/88 (20%) OP patients were reviewed. A secondary laparotomy or laparoscopy was necessary in 11/71 TNO. Six OP (35%) and 1 NOP patients died. Blood units transfused were 1.33 (0-10) vs 5.9 (0-22) and vascular filling 1.45 (0.5-5.5) vs 3.6L (2-12) (P<10(-6), P<4.10(-3) respectively). NOP patients had less severe hemoperitoneum (31 vs 94%, P<10(-5)) and hemodynamic instability (8.5 vs 94%, P<10(-4)). But, there was an overlap of values of blood units transfused, amount of vascular filling and initial haemoglobin levels between NOP and OP patients and among CT grades of liver injury. No cut-off values could be determined: 33% NOP received >4 blood units and >3 L vascular filling; 30% had severe hemoperitoneum. In OP group 23.5% patients had lower values and no severe hemoperitoneum.

CONCLUSION

In the management of BL, vascular filling and blood transfusion increased with the grade of CT liver injury and were globally more elevated in the operative group but did not individually correlate with hemodynamic stability and did not authorize, by themselves, to decide between operative versus non-operative management.

Reevaluating the Management and Outcomes of Severe Blunt Liver Injury

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors that predict the need for operative management (OM) of severe blunt liver injury. We also sought to determine the impact of interventional angiography (Ang) in the treatment and outcomes of these patients.

METHODS

Patients with blunt liver injuries of grade IV or higher were retrospectively reviewed for their demographics, hemodynamics, blood product requirements, laboratory and radiologic data, hospital course, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients underwent OM. They had a significantly higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) and lower Glasgow Coma Scale score (p = 0.004), a lower systolic blood pressure (p = 0.002) and a higher heart rate (p = 0.02), and higher fluid and transfusion requirements (p < 0.001) than those treated without OM. Their mortality rate was 66%; 59% of deaths were from uncontrolled bleeding. Initial platelet count and fluid requirements at 4 hours were independent predictors of the need for OM. Ang was performed in 48 patients. Patients who were treated without Ang required more fluids (p = 0.03) and more packed red blood cells (p = 0.02) at 4 hours. Patients requiring both OM and Ang had a higher complication rate (p = 0.02) and longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (p < 0.001) than those who had OM alone, but mortality was the same (p = 0.1). Patients treated nonoperatively had longer intensive care unit (p = 0.006) and hospital stays (p < 0.05) if they required Ang, but mortality was the same. The only survival advantage to the use of Ang was when Ang alone was compared with OM alone.

CONCLUSION

Select high-grade injuries can be successfully managed nonoperatively. Initial platelet count and crystalloid fluid use at 4 hours predict the need for OM. Patients requiring OM are less stable and have substantial mortality but often do not die as a result of uncontrolled bleeding. Ang has a role in stable patients who do not require OM initially but does not improve outcome in patients who require OM.

The need for early angiographic embolization in blunt liver injuries

BACKGROUND

Although nonoperative management of blunt liver injury (BLI) has become standard practice, adjuncts to nonoperative therapy, such as angiographic embolization, have not been well characterized.

METHODS

Patients with BLI were retrospectively identified at our American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center from January 1997 through February 2001. Patients were stratified into four groups: those who received angiographic embolization (AE) as an early intervention when BLI was initially diagnosed (EARLY-AE); those who underwent AE after liver-related operation or later in the hospital course (LATE-AE); those treated with operation only (OR-ONLY); and nonoperative patients who also did not undergo AE (NO-OR).

RESULTS

There were 126 patients with BLI, of whom 94 were NO-OR, 20 were OR-ONLY, 6 had LATE-AE, and 6 had EARLY-AE. The NO-OR group had significantly lower liver Abbreviated Injury Scale scores. Liver Abbreviated Injury Scale scores were not different between the EARLY-AE, LATE-AE, and OR-ONLY groups. Liver-related mortality was not lower for those treated with AE. There was a trend toward lower mortality for just the EARLY-AE group compared with the LATE-AE and OR-ONLY groups (0% vs. 50% and 35%). The number of units of packed red blood cells transfused and the number of liver-related operations were lower in the EARLY-AE compared with the LATE-AE group, but liver-related complications were not different between the EARLY-AE, LATE-AE, or OR-ONLY groups. AE was successful in arresting hemorrhage in 83% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

In this small series, we observed similar morbidity and mortality with AE compared with operative therapy. EARLY-AE did decrease blood use and the number of liver-related operations. AE can be performed on severely injured patients with comparable liver-related mortality and complications. Further study of the timing of and outcomes from AE is needed.

Hepatic angiography in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy

OBJECTIVE

Patients undergoing damage control (DC) laparotomy require intensive and aggressive resuscitation, and may require additional maneuvers to control parenchymal bleeding. Those patients suffering significant liver injury are at high risk for arterial bleeding deep within the liver, and many require hepatic angiography in addition to hepatic packing. We reviewed our experience with hepatic angiography, and sought to determine its safety in the DC population of penetrating and blunt trauma patients.

METHODS

A 3-year (June 1997-May 2000) retrospective review generated 37 DC patients. Patients sustaining hepatic trauma constituted the study group. Patients undergoing angiography in addition to DC laparotomy were compared with the group of patients not undergoing angiography. Data regarding mechanism of injury, patient demographics, extent of hepatic injury, and presence of associated injuries were collected. Physiologic parameters including vital signs at admission, lowest pH and base excess in the operating room, and lactate levels in the intensive care unit, as well as volumes of fluid resuscitation throughout all phases of DC were examined. Complications including death, intra-abdominal processes, acute respiratory distress syndrome and/or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and acute renal failure were reviewed.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (51%) had hepatic trauma and underwent perihepatic packing as a part of DC laparotomy. Eleven had sustained penetrating injury and 8 had blunt injury. There was 1 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade I, 5 grade II, 3 grade III, and 10 grade IV injuries. Nine patients in the study population underwent angiography, and eight of these were hepatic artery angiograms. One hepatic angiogram was obtained before operation and seven were obtained in the immediate postoperative period. Six underwent embolization of bleeding hepatic vessels, for a therapeutic liver angiography rate of 75%. There was no statistical difference in physiologic parameters or fluid requirements between the patients who underwent angiography and those who did not. There were no mishaps or complications from angiography or while in the angiography suite.

CONCLUSION

Hepatic angiography is a safe adjunct to the principles of damage control. It has a high therapeutic ratio, with no significant untoward effect in this small study population.

Blunt thoraco-abdominal injury

Recent advances in blunt thoraco-abdominal trauma management include improvements in imaging, particularly in trauma bay ultrasound. Indications for non-operative management have expanded for solid organ and aortic injury. The physiology of abdominal compartment syndrome continues to be defined, with resulting improvements in care.