Damage control laparotomy utilization rates are highly variable among Level I trauma centers: Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios findings

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Wittmann Patch-Assisted Abdominal Closure Compared to Planned Ventral Hernia in Management of the Open Abdomen

BACKGROUND

Inability to achieve primary fascial closure after damage control laparotomy is a frequently encountered problem by acute care and trauma surgeons. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of Wittmann patch-assisted closure to the planned ventral hernia closure.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to determine the probabilities and outcomes for Wittmann patch-assisted primary closure and planned ventral hernia closure techniques. Average utility scores were obtained by a patient-administered survey for the following: rate of successful surgeries (uncomplicated abdominal wall closure), surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, abdominal hernia and enterocutaneous fistula. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was utilized to assess the survey responses and then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Total cost for each strategy was calculated using Medicare billing codes. A decision tree was generated with rollback and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty.

RESULTS

Wittmann patch-assisted closure was associated with higher clinical effectiveness of 19.43 QALYs compared to planned ventral hernia repair (19.38), with a relative cost reduction of US$7777. Rollback analysis supported Wittmann patch-assisted closure as the more cost-effective strategy. The resulting negative ICUR of -156,679.77 favored Wittmann patch-assisted closure. Monte Carlo analysis demonstrated a confidence of 96.8% that Wittmann patch-assisted closure was cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates using the Wittmann patch-assisted closure strategy as a more cost-efficient management of the open abdomen compared to the planned ventral hernia approach.

Delayed fascial closure in nontrauma abdominal emergencies: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Initially used in trauma management, delayed abdominal closure endeavors to decrease operative time during the index operation while still being lifesaving. Its use in emergency general surgery is increasing, but the data evaluating its outcome are sparse. We aimed to study the association between delayed abdominal closure, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay in an emergency surgery cohort.

METHODS

The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was examined for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The patients were classified by the timing of abdominal wall closure: delayed fascial closure versus immediate fascial closure. Propensity score matching was performed based on preoperative covariates, wound classification, and performance of bowel resection. The outcomes were then compared by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, both the delayed fascial closure and immediate fascial closure groups consisted of 3,354 patients each. Median age was 65 years, and 52.6% were female. The delayed fascial closure group had a higher in-hospital mortality (35.3% vs 25.0%, P < .001), a higher 30-day mortality (38.6% vs 29.0%, P < .001), a higher proportion of acute kidney injury (9.5% vs 6.6%, P < .001), a lower proportion of postoperative sepsis (11.8% vs 15.6%, P < .001), and a lower proportion of surgical site infection (3.4% vs 7.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with immediate fascial closure, delayed fascial closure is associated with an increased mortality in the patients matched based on comorbidities and surgical site contamination. In emergency general surgery, delaying abdominal closure may not have the presumed overarching benefits, and its indications must be further defined in this population.

It is time to look in the mirror: Individual surgeon outcomes after emergent trauma laparotomy

BACKGROUND

Multiple quality indicators are used by trauma programs to decrease variation and improve outcomes. However, little if any provider level outcomes related to surgical procedures are reviewed. Emergent trauma laparotomy (ETL) is arguably the signature case that trauma surgeons perform on a regular basis, but few data exist to facilitate benchmarking of individual surgeon outcomes. As part of our comprehensive performance improvement program, we examined outcomes by surgeon for those who routinely perform ETL.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ETL directly from the trauma bay by trauma faculty from December 2019 to February 2021 was conducted. Patients were excluded from mortality analysis if they required resuscitative thoracotomy for arrest before ETL. Surgeons were compared by rates of damage control and mortality at multiple time points.

RESULTS

There were 242 ETL (7-32 ETLs per surgeon) performed by 14 faculties. Resuscitative thoracotomy was performed in 7.0% (n = 17) before ETL. Six patients without resuscitative thoracotomy died intraoperatively and damage-control laparotomy was performed on 31.9% (n = 72 of 226 patients). Mortality was 4.0% (n = 9) at 24 hours and 7.1% (n = 16) overall. Median Injury Severity Score (p = 0.21), new injury severity score (p = 0.21), and time in emergency department were similar overall among surgeons (p = 0.15), while operative time varied significantly (40-469 minutes; p = 0.005). There were significant differences between rates of individual surgeon's mortality (range [hospital mortality], 0-25%) and damage-control laparotomy (range, 14-63%) in ETL.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences exist in outcomes by surgeon after ETL. Benchmarking surgeon level performance is a necessary natural progression of quality assurance programs for individual trauma centers. Additional data from multiple centers will be vital to allow for development of more granular quality metrics to foster introspective case review and quality improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level III.

Physiology dictated treatment after severe trauma: timing is everything

INTRODUCTION

Damage control strategies in resuscitation and (fracture) surgery have become standard of care in the treatment of severely injured patients. It is suggested that damage control improves survival and decreases the incidence of organ failure. However, these strategies can possibly increase the risk of complications such as infections. Indication for damage control procedures is guided by physiological parameters, type of injury, and the surgeon's experience. We analyzed outcomes of severely injured patients who underwent emergency surgery.

METHODS

Severely injured patients, admitted to a level-1 trauma center ICU from 2016 to 2020 who were in need of ventilator support and required immediate surgical intervention ( ≤24 h) were included. Demographics, treatment, and outcome parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Hundred ninety-five patients were identified with a median ISS of 33 (IQR 25-38). Ninety-seven patients underwent immediate definitive surgery (ETC group), while 98 patients were first treated according to damage control principles with abbreviated surgery (DCS group). Although ISS was similar in both groups, DCS patients were younger, suffered from more severe truncal injuries, were more frequently in shock with more severe acidosis and coagulopathy, and received more blood products. ETC patients with traumatic brain injury needed more often a craniotomy. Seventy-four percent of DCS patients received definitive surgery in the second surgical procedure. There was no difference in mortality, nor any other outcome including organ failure and infections.

CONCLUSIONS

When in severely injured patients treatment is dictated by physiology into either early definitive surgery or damage control with multiple shorter procedures stretched over several days combined with aggressive resuscitation with blood products, outcome is comparable in terms of complications.

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.

Platelet to erythrocyte transfusion ratio and mortality in massively transfused trauma patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusion during major hemorrhage is important and often embedded in massive transfusion protocols. However, the optimal ratio of platelets to erythrocytes (platelet-rich plasma [PLT]/red blood cell [RBC] ratio) remains unclear. We hypothesized that high PLT/RBC ratios, as compared with low PLT/RBC ratios, are associated with improved survival in patients requiring massive transfusion.

METHODS

Four databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were systematically screened for literatures published until January 21, 2021, to determine the effect of PLT/RBC ratio on the primary outcome measure mortality at 1 hour to 6 hours and 24 hours and at 28 days to 30 days. Studies comparing various PLT/RBC ratios were included in the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay and in-hospital length of stay and total blood component use. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42020165648.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 8903 records. After removing the duplicates and second screening of title, abstract, and full text, a total of 59 articles were included in the analysis. Of these articles, 12 were included in the meta-analysis. Mortality at 1 hour to 6 hours, 24 hours, and 28 days to 30 days was significantly lower for high PLT/RBC ratios as compared with low PLT/RBC ratios.

CONCLUSION

Higher PLT/RBC ratios are associated with significantly lower 1-hour to 6-hour, 24-hour, 28-day to 30-day mortalities as compared with lower PLT/RBC ratios. The optimal PLT/RBC ratio for massive transfusion in trauma patients is approximately 1:1.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, therapeutic Level III.

Trauma Team Activation: Which Surgical Capability Is Immediately Required in Polytrauma? A Retrospective, Monocentric Analysis of Emergency Procedures Performed on 751 Severely Injured Patients

There has been an ongoing discussion as to which interventions should be carried out by an “organ specialist” (for example, a thoracic or visceral surgeon) or by a trauma surgeon with appropriate general surgical training in polytrauma patients. However, there are only limited data about which exact emergency interventions are immediately carried out. This retrospective data analysis of one Level 1 trauma center includes adult polytrauma patients, as defined according to the Berlin definition. The primary outcome was the four most common emergency surgical interventions (ESI) performed during primary resuscitation. Out of 1116 patients, 751 (67.3%) patients (male gender, 530, 74.3%) met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 39 years (IQR: 25, 58) and the median injury severity score (ISS) was 38 (IQR: 29, 45). In total, 711 (94.7%) patients had at least one ESI. The four most common ESI were the insertion of a chest tube (48%), emergency laparotomy (26.3%), external fixation (23.5%), and the insertion of an intracranial pressure probe (ICP) (19.3%). The initial emergency treatment of polytrauma patients include a limited spectrum of potential life-saving interventions across distinct body regions. Polytrauma care would benefit from the 24/7 availability of a trauma team able to perform basic potentially life-saving surgical interventions, including chest tube insertion, emergency laparotomy, placing external fixators, and ICP insertion.

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.

New non-invasive device to promote primary closure of the fascia and prevent loss of domain in the open abdomen: a pilot study

Background

Primary closure of the fascia at the conclusion of a stage laparotomy can be a challenging task. Current techniques to medialize the fascial edges in open abdomens entail several trips to the operating room and could result in fascial damage. We conducted a pilot study to investigate a novel non-invasive device for gradual reapproximation of the abdominal wall fascia in the open abdomen.

Methods

Mechanically ventilated patients ≥16 years of age with the abdominal fascia deliberately left open after a midline laparotomy for trauma and acute care surgery were randomized into two groups. Control group patients underwent standard care with negative pressure therapy only. Device group patients were treated with negative pressure therapy in conjunction with the new device for fascial reapproximation. Exclusion criteria: pregnancy, traumatic hernias, pre-existing ventral hernias, burns, and body mass index ≥40 kg/m². The primary outcome was successful fascial closure by direct suture of the fascia without mesh or component separation. Secondary outcomes were abdominal wall complications.

Results

Thirty-eight patients were investigated, 20 in the device group and 18 in the control group. Primary closure of the fascia by direct suture without mesh or component separation was achieved in 17 patients (85%) in the device group and only 10 patients (55.6%) in the control group (p=0.0457). Device group patients were 53% more likely to experience primary fascial closure by direct suture than control group patients. Device group showed gradual reduction (p<0.005) in the size of the fascial defects; not seen in control group. There were no complications related to the device.

Conclusions

The new device applied externally on the abdominal wall promoted reapproximation of the fascia in the midline, preserved the integrity of the fascia, and improved primary fascial closure rate compared with negative pressure therapy system only.

Level of evidence

I, randomized controlled trial.

Readmission With Major Abdominal Complications After Penetrating Abdominal Trauma

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in operative techniques, major abdominal complications (MACs) continue to occur after penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). This study aimed to evaluate the burden of MAC after PAT.

METHODS

The (2012-2015) National Readmission Database was queried for all adult (age ≥18 y) trauma patients with penetrating injuries who underwent exploratory laparotomy and were readmitted within 6 mo of index hospitalization discharge. Patients were stratified by firearm injuries (FIs) and stab injuries (SIs). Primary outcomes were rates of MAC: intra-abdominal abscesses (IAAs), superficial surgical site infection (SSI), and fascial dehiscence within 6 mo after discharge. Secondary outcomes were both nonabdominal complications and mortality, postdischarge, and 6-mo readmission. Regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 4473 patients (FI, 2326; SI, 2147) were included in the study; the mean age was 32 ± 14 y, the Injury Severity Score was 19 (15-25), and 23% underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL). The rate of MAC within 6 mo was 22% (IAA 19%, SSI 7%, and fascial dehiscence 4%). Patients with FIs had a higher rate of IAA (27% versus 10%; P < 0.01), SSI (11% versus 3%; P < 0.01), fascial dehiscence (5% versus 3%; P = 0.03), nonabdominal complications (54% versus 24%; P < 0.01), and postdischarge mortality (8% versus 6%; P < 0.01) compared with patients with SIs . On regression analysis, DCL (P < 0.01), large bowel perforation (P < 0.01), biliary-pancreatic injury (P < 0.01), hepatic injury (P < 0.01), and blood transfusion (P = 0.02) were predictors of MAC.

CONCLUSIONS

MAC developed in one in five patients after PAT. FIs have a higher potential for hollow viscus injury and peritoneal contamination, and are more predictive of MAC and nonabdominal complications, especially after DCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Prognostic.

Wittmann Patch : Superior Closure for the Open Abdomen

INTRODUCTION

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is a life-saving surgical technique, but the resultant open abdomen (OA) carries serious morbidity/mortality. Many methods are utilized to manage OAs, but discrepancy exists in distinguishing closure from coverage techniques. We observed a difference in our DCL patient outcomes managed with the Wittmann Patch (WP) closure device versus the more popular ABThera (AB) coverage device. We hypothesized that the WP contributed to an improved fascial closure rate of the OAs after DCL.

METHODS

A retrospective review of OAs managed with the AB or WP at our Level 1 trauma center was performed using billing codes to capture DCL patients from 2011 to 2019. Patients were divided into AB alone or WP groups. Major endpoints included primary fascial closure (PFC) and delayed fascial closure (DFC, fascial closure after greater than 7 days).

RESULTS

189 patients were identified as AB and 38 as WP. Rates of death before closure, age, gender, and Injury Severity Score were similar in both groups. PFC = 81%-90% for AB versus WP, respectively. Excluding patients with preexisting hernias PFC = 87%-100% for AB versus WP (P < .05) and DFC = 44%-100% for AB versus WP (P ≤ 0.001). WP had a statistically higher rate of PFC and DFC. There was a decreased incidence of complications in the WP versus AB group.

CONCLUSIONS

While not well reported in the peer-reviewed literature, the application of the WP for management of the OA is an active form of pursuing PFC when compared with the AB, a coverage device. Our interinstitutional results have demonstrated superior PFC and DFC rates and fewer complications, in patients managed with the WP compared with the AB.

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

BACKGROUND

Although studies have identified published indications that experts and practicing surgeons agree indicate use of damage control (DC) laparotomy, it is unknown whether these indications predict use of the procedure in practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a diagnostic performance study of the accuracy of a set of published appropriateness indications for predicting use of DC laparotomy. We included consecutive adults that underwent emergent laparotomy for trauma (2011-2016) at Memorial Hermann Hospital.

RESULTS

We included 1141 injured adults. Two published preoperative appropriateness indications [a systolic blood pressure (BP) persistently <90 mmHg or core body temperature <34°C] produced moderate shifts in the pretest probability of conducting DC instead of definitive laparotomy. Five published intraoperative appropriateness indications produced large and often conclusive changes in the pretest probability of conducting DC during emergent laparotomy. These included the finding of a devascularized or completely disrupted pancreas, duodenum, or pancreaticoduodenal complex; an estimated intraoperative blood loss >4 L; administration of >10 U of packed red blood cells (PRBCs); and a systolic BP persistently <90 mmHg or arterial pH persistently <7.2 during operation. Most indications that produced large changes in the pretest probability of conducting DC laparotomy had an incidence of 2% or less.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that published appropriateness indications accurately predict use of DC laparotomy in practice. Intraoperative variables exert greater influence on the decision to conduct DC laparotomy than preoperative variables, and those indications that produce large shifts in the pretest probability of conducting DC laparotomy are uncommonly encountered.

Outcome of trauma-related emergency laparotomies, in an era of far-reaching specialization

Background

Far reaching sub-specialization tends to become obligatory for surgeons in most Western countries. It is suggested that exposure of surgeons to emergency laparotomy after trauma is ever declining. Therefore, it can be questioned whether a generalist (i.e., general surgery) with additional differentiation such as the trauma surgeon, will still be needed and can remain sufficiently qualified. This study aimed to evaluate volume trends and outcomes of emergency laparotomies in trauma.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in the University Medical Center Utrecht between January 2008 and January 2018, in which all patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy for trauma were included. Collected data were demographics, trauma-related characteristics, and number of (planned and unplanned) laparotomies with their indications. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU, and overall hospital stay.

Results

A total of 268 index emergency laparotomies were evaluated. Total number of patients who presented with an abdominal AIS > 2 remained constant over the past 10 years, as did the percentage of patients that required an emergency laparotomy. Most were polytrauma patients with a mean ISS = 27.5 (SD ± 14.9). The most frequent indication for laparotomy was hemodynamic instability or ongoing blood loss (44%).Unplanned relaparotomies occurred in 21% of the patients, mostly due to relapse of bleeding. Other complications were anastomotic leakage (8.6%), intestinal leakage after bowel contusion (4%). In addition, an incisional hernia was found in 6.3%. Mortality rate was 16.7%, mostly due to neurologic origin (42%). Average length of stay was 16 days with an ICU stay of 5 days.

Conclusion

This study shows a persistent number of patients requiring emergency laparotomy after (blunt) abdominal trauma over 10 years in a European trauma center. When performed by a dedicated trauma team, this results in acceptable mortality and complication rates in this severely injured population.

Emergency laparotomy research methodology: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poorer clinical outcomes than similar procedures in the elective setting. Research into emergency laparotomy (EL) care is moving from observational studies which simply measure EL outcomes to interventional research evaluating the implementation of care strategies designed to improve the quality and outcomes from EL care. There is no consensus as to the optimal approach to conducting research in this sphere. The primary objective of this review was to examine how mortality and other outcome measures were reported in previous EL research and to identify what might be the most appropriate methods in future outcome research.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA principles. Electronic databases were interrogated with a pre-specified search strategy to identify English language studies addressing outcomes from EL care. Retrieved papers were screened and assessed according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. The mortality and other outcomes reported in each paper were extracted and examined.

RESULTS

16 studies were included. They demonstrated significant heterogeneity in case definition, outcome reporting and data processing. A wide range of mortality and other outcome measures were applied and reported. Only few studies included on patient-reported outcomes measures.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in EL research, demonstrated by this review must be considered when EL outcomes are compared. A standardized approach with respect to case definition, outcome measurement, and data analysis would provide for more valid and comparable evaluation of EL outcomes. Future EL research should include more patient centred outcomes.

Damage control surgery: current state and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a staged surgical approach to the treatment of critically injured trauma patients. Originally described in the context of hepatic trauma and postinjury-induced coagulopathy, the indications for DCS have expanded to the management of extra abdominal trauma and to the management of nontraumatic acute abdominal emergencies. Despite being an accepted treatment algorithm, DCS is based on a limited evidence with current concerns of the variability in practice indications, rates and adverse outcomes in poorly selected patient cohorts.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent efforts have attempted to synthesize evidence-based indication to guide clinical practice. Significant progress in trauma-based resuscitation techniques has led to improved outcomes in injured patients and a reduction in the requirement of DCS techniques.

SUMMARY

DCS remains an important treatment strategy in the management of specific patient cohorts. Continued developments in early trauma care will likely result in a further decline in the required use of DCS in severely injured patients.