Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism and Eventual Amputation in Traumatic Femoral and Iliac Vein Injuries: A Trauma Quality Improvement Program Analysis

BACKGROUND

Iliac and femoral venous injuries represent a challenging dilemma in trauma surgery with mixed results. Venous restoration of outflow (via repair or bypass) has been previously identified as having higher rates of VTE (venous thromboembolism) compared to ligation. We hypothesized that rates of VTE and eventual amputation were similar whether restoration of venous outflow vs ligation was performed at initial operation.

METHODS

Patients in the 2019-2021 National Trauma Data Bank with iliac and femoral vein injuries were abstracted and analyzed. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital lower extremity amputation and VTE.

RESULTS

A total of 2642 patients with operatively managed iliac and femoral vein injuries were identified VTE was found in 10.8% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression was performed and identified bowel injury, higher ISS, older age, open repair, and longer time to VTE prophylaxis initiation as independent predictors of VTE. Amputation was required in 4.2% of patients. Multivariable logistic regression identified arterial or nerve injury, femur or tibia fracture, venous ligation, percutaneous intervention, fasciotomy, bowel injury, and higher ISS as independent factors of amputation.

CONCLUSION

Venous restoration was not an independent predictor of VTE. Venous ligation on index operation was the only modifiable independent predictor of amputation identified on regression analysis.

Penetrating injury of the common femoral vein followed by local deep vein thrombosis: A case report

This case report discusses a unique scenario in which a 19-year-old patient with a penetrating wound in the common femoral vein developed deep vein thrombosis in response to life-threatening bleeding. The report highlights our thoughts on managing an isolated truncal venous injury leading to deep vein thrombosis, emphasizing the significance of surgical exploration in vascular trauma and the feasibility of employing non-invasive imaging diagnosis in preoperative planning.

Predictive factors of amputation in infra-inguinal vascular trauma: a monocentric experience

OBJECTIVES

Infra-inguinal vascular injuries (IIVI) are emergencies involving both functional and vital prognosis. The choice between saving the limb or doing a first-line amputation is difficult even for an experienced surgeon. The aims of this work are to analyze early outcomes in our center and to identify predictive factors for amputation.

M METHODS

Between 2010 and 2017, we reviewed retrospectively patients with IIVI. The main criteria for judgement were: primary, secondary and overall amputation. Two groups of potential risk factors of amputation were analyzed: Those related to the patient: age, shock, ISS score; those related to the lesion: mechanism, above or below the knee, bone lesions, venous lesions and skin decay. A univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to determine the risk factor(s) independently associated with the occurrence of amputation.

RESULTS

57 IIVI were found in 54 patients. The mean ISS was 32,3 ± 21. A primary amputation was performed in 19%, and secondary in 14% of cases. Overall amputation rate was 35% (n=19). Multivariate analysis reveals that the ISS is the only predictor of primary (p=0.009; OR:1.07; CI:1.01-1.12) and global (p=0.04; OR:1.07; IC:1.02-1.13) amputation. A threshold value of 41 was selected as a primary amputation risk factor with a negative predictive value of 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISS is a good predictor of the risk of amputation in IIVI. A threshold of 41 is an objective criterion helping to decide for a first-line amputation. Advanced age and hemodynamic instability should not be important in the decision tree.

Analysis of Concomitant and Isolated Venous Injury in Military Lower Extremity Trauma

OBJECTIVES

The implications of major venous injury to the lower extremity are not well established. We aimed to determine the significance of concomitant and isolated femoropopliteal venous injury and assess the impact of surgical management strategies on limb outcomes.

METHODS

The Fasciotomy and Vascular Injury Outcomes Database was queried for limbs sustaining femoropopliteal arterial, venous, or concomitant injuries in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2004-2012. Demographics, injury patterns and severity, interventions, and outcomes were compared between patients sustaining isolated arterial injuries (IAI) and concomitant arteriovenous injuries (AVI). In limbs with any venous injury, outcomes were compared between those undergoing venous (VR) and ligation (VL).

RESULTS

330 patients (133 IAI, 135 AVI, 62 isolated venous injuries (IVI)) were included. AVI was associated with greater limb injury severity: median extremity Abbreviated Injury Scale (AVI 4 vs. IAI 3, p=0.01), Mangled Extremity Severity Score >7 (25.9% vs. 13.5%, p= 0.01), multi-level vascular injury (6.7% vs. 0.8%, p=0.01) and with greater fasciotomy use (83.0% vs. 69.2%, p=0.01). No differences were present in tourniquet use/time, shunting, or nature of arterial repair. No differences in vascular or limb complications (71.1% vs. 63.9%, p=0.21) or amputation rate (25.9% vs. 18.8%, p=0.16) were present, though limb DVT rate was 12.6% in AVI vs. 7.5% in IAI (p=0.17). Limbs with IVI had a 12.9% amputation and a 74.2% complication rate. Repair (n=103) versus ligation (n=94) of venous injuries was not associated with a difference in amputation (18.4% vs. 25.5%, p=0.23) or limb complication rates (71.8% vs. 72.3%, p=0.94).

CONCLUSION

Despite higher extremity injury severity and more frequent fasciotomies, concomitant venous injury was not associated with poorer limb salvage or complications. With nontrivial amputation and complication rates, IVI is indicative of severe limb trauma. Repair of femoropopliteal venous injuries does not appear to influence limb outcomes.

Review article: History of venous trauma

ABSTRACT

This is a literature review on the history of venous trauma since the 1800s, especially that to the common femoral, femoral and popliteal veins, with focus on the early 1900s, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and then civilian and military reviews (1960-2020). In the latter two groups, tables were used to summarize the following: incidence of venous repair versus ligation, management of popliteal venous injuries, patency of venous repairs when assessed <30 days from operation, patency of venous repairs when assessed >30 days from operation, clinical assessment (edema or not) after ligation versus repair, incidence of deep venous thrombosis after ligation versus repair, and incidence of pulmonary embolism after ligation versus repair.There is a lack of the following in the literature on the management of venous injuries over the past 80 years: standard definition of magnitude of venous injury in operative reports, accepted indications for venous repair, standard postoperative management, and timing and mode of early and later postoperative assessment.Multiple factors have entered into the decision on venous ligation versus repair after trauma for the past 60 years, but a surgeon's training and local management protocols have the most influence in both civilian and military centers. Ligation of venous injuries, particularly those in the lower extremities, is well tolerated in civilian trauma, although there is the usual lack of short- and long-term follow-up as noted in many of the articles reviewed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review article, levels IV and V.

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.

Traumatic femoral arteriovenous fistula following gunshot injury: Case report and review of literature

Introduction

Vascular injuries account for approximately 2–4% of trauma admissions with only 2.5% of these being traumatic arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs). We offer a case report of a traumatic AVF and review of the literature.

Presentation of case

A 40-year-old male presented following 4 gunshot wounds, 2 in the forearm and 2 in the left upper thigh. The patient had decreased range of motion and paresthesia of the left lower extremity with palpable pulses and adequate capillary refill in all extremities. A CT angiogram demonstrated a left traumatic AVF involving the left deep femoral artery and left common femoral vein with an adjacent bullet fragment. The patient was taken to the operating room and underwent an exploration of the left groin, repair of the traumatic AVF, and removal of bullet fragment. The venous aspect had a grade IV injury and was ligated. The arterial defect was debrided to healthy tissue and repaired primarily. The patient recovered from his injuries with adequate ambulation and resolution of lower extremity edema. He was discharged home on postoperative day 4 on aspirin and a compression stocking.

Discussion

Traumatic AVFs are rare, with up to 70% diagnosed in a delayed fashion. Clinicians must maintain a high index of suspicion to correctly diagnose and manage this injury to avoid potential morbidity and mortality.

Conclusion

Despite literature accounts of surgeons’ experience, this pathology is lacking level one evidence-based standardized surgical management algorithms. Controversy exists regarding venous repair methods.

•

Early diagnosis and management of traumatic AVFs help avoid potential long-term morbidity and mortality.

•

Traumatic AVFs with Grade IV venous injuries can be safely ligated with minimal morbidity while reducing operative time and potential blood loss.

•

Patients with traumatic AVFs should be placed on a strict DVT surveillance and management regimen along with compression stockings postoperatively.

Presentation patterns and prognosis of 109 isolated venous injuries in 99 patients

Objectives

To identify outcome predictors of isolated venous injuries (VIs).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected information.

Results

A total of 99 patients with 109 isolated VI were included. All-cause mortality was 18/99 (18%) and mortality related to the VI was 10/99 (10%). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality included age (odds ratio – OR – 1.06, p = 0.042), external cause – trauma and foreign body retention – of VI (OR 34.62, p = 0.002) and the number of red blood cell units transfused intraoperatively (OR 2.10, p < 0.001), while independent predictors of VI-related mortality included external cause of VI (OR 47.60, p = 0.001) and the number of red blood cell units transfused intraoperatively (OR 1.72, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

VIs due to external causes have a high mortality rate. On the other hand, VIs due to internal causes (iatrogenic injuries during a surgical procedure) are managed promptly and have a very low mortality related to the VI.

No correlation between lower extremity deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism proportions in trauma: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of surveillance on deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) rates, the efficacy of chemoprophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis, and the relationship between DVT and PE.

METHODS

A 23 year, systematic literature review was performed in PubMed. Twenty publications with > 13,000 patients were reviewed. Analyzed traits included: DVT surveillance utilization, the total number of patients included in each study, the number of patients developing DVT and/or PE, chemoprophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis utilization. When event proportions from individual studies were combined, a weighted mean proportion was computed based on the size of each individual cohort. Combined event proportions were compared with other combined event proportions, according to differences in intervention. Inter-group event proportions were compared using Chi-Square or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

DVT rates increase with surveillance (10.7% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.001). PE rates were similar regardless of surveillance (p = 1.0). Chemoprophylaxis lowered both DVT rates (8.2% vs. 10.7%; p < 0.0001) and PE rates (1.2% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.0050). Mechanical prophylaxis did not decrease DVT rates (10.2% vs. 11.5%; p = 0.2980) or PE rates (1.7% vs. 1.6%; p = 1.0). In patients with neither chemoprophylaxis nor mechanical prophylaxis, DVT rate was 11.5%, PE was 1.6%. When chemoprophylaxis and/or mechanical prophylaxis were given, DVT rate was 8.6% (p < 0.0189) and PE was 1.3% (p = 0.4462). PE proportions were not decreased with mechanical prophylaxis or surveillance. DVT and PE rates were not associated (p = 0.7574).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that PE is not associated with lower extremity DVT in adult trauma patients.

Results and functional outcomes of en-bloc resection and vascular reconstruction in extremity musculoskeletal tumors

Objectives

This paper aims to evaluate the extremity function and vascular outcome after limb-sparing surgery for extremity musculoskeletal tumors invading vascular structure required reconstruction.

Methods

Of the 507 patients with musculoskeletal tumors, who underwent surgery between 2004 and 2007, 17 (3,3%) patients with major vessel involvement were included in the study. The mean age was 37.8 ± 14.5, with a female/male ratio of 8/9. Thirteen (76.4%) patients had Stage IIb disease, and 2 (11,7%) patients had Stage III disease. In 2 (11,7%) patients have locally aggressive tumor that had Stage 3. Fifteen (88.2%) of the cases involved lower extremity, whilst 2 (11.8%) of them involved upper extremity. An arterial reconstruction was carried out in all patients. Wide tumor resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction were performed in 6 (35.2%) patients. Other 11 (65.8%) patients were treated with wide resection and soft tissue reconstruction. Postoperative data included; perioperative morbidities such as bleeding, infection, graft thrombosis, rupture, metastatic local recurrence and mortality. Ankle brachial index (ABI) and color-flow-duplex-scan (CFDS) were done at the final follow-up of the study, in order to prove the efficacy of reconstruction. Functional outcome was evaluated with International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) criteria.

Results

The mean follow-up was of 39 months (range 3–120). Perioperative complications were arterial graft thrombosis occurred in 3 (17.6%) patients treated acutely with thrombectomy, uncontrolled deep wound infection occurred in 2 patients whom extremities were amputated.

The most frequent complication after surgery was limb edema according to possibly venous and lymphatic obstruction, staged as C1, C2 and C3 disease was established in 6 patients (two patients in each group), and 1 patient was classified as C6 disease. Three (17.6%) patients had local recurrence (1/3 patient died and 2/3 (11.7%) patients underwent transfemoral amputation). At the last follow-up, 9 (52.9%) patients were alive without evidence of disease, 8 (47.1%) patients were died due to primary disease. There were 8 (47.1%) patients alive with an intact limb. Although functional outcome scores were satisfactory, emotional acceptance scores were low. The limb salvage probability was 74.0%.

Conclusion

Limb-sparing oncological surgery in musculoskeletal tumors with vascular invasion provides a satisfactory limb function, which may lead to an improved life quality. Arterial reconstruction has a high rate of patency in the long term. The surgeon should be aware of early perioperative complication related to vascular reconstruction and infection that effect on the rate of extremity survival.

Level of evidence

Level IV, Therapeutic study

Venous thromboembolism after major venous injuries: Competing priorities

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after major vascular injury (MVI) is particularly challenging because the competing risk of thrombosis and embolization after direct vessel injury must be balanced with risk of bleeding after surgical repair. We hypothesized that venous injuries, repair type, and intraoperative anticoagulation would influence VTE formation after MVI.

METHODS

A multi-institution, retrospective cohort study of consecutive MVI patients was conducted at three urban, Level I centers (2005-2013). Patients with MVI of the neck, torso, or proximal extremities (to elbows/knees) were included. Our primary study endpoint was the development of VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE]).

RESULTS

The 435 major vascular injury patients were primarily young (27 years) men (89%) with penetrating (84%) injuries. When patients with (n = 108) and without (n = 327) VTE were compared, we observed no difference in age, mechanism, extremity injury, tourniquet use, orthopedic and spine injuries, damage control, local heparinized saline, or vascular surgery consultation (all p > 0.05). VTE patients had greater Injury Severity Score (ISS) (17 vs. 12), shock indices (1 vs. 0.9), and more torso (58% vs. 35%) and venous (73% vs. 48%) injuries, but less often received systemic intraoperative anticoagulation (39% vs. 53%) or postoperative enoxaparin (47% vs. 61%) prophylaxis (all p < 0.05). After controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis, multivariable analysis revealed venous injury was independently predictive of VTE (odds ratio, 2.7; p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis of the venous injuries subset (n = 237) then determined that only delay in starting VTE chemoprophylaxis (odds ratio, 1.3/day; p = 0.013) independently predicted VTE after controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, surgical subspecialty, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis. Overall, 3.4% of venous injury patients developed PE, but PE rates were not related to their operative management (p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Patients with major venous injuries are at high risk for VTE, regardless of intraoperative management. Our results support the immediate initiation of postoperative chemoprophylaxis in patients with major venous injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Management of Peripheral and Truncal Venous Injuries

Civilian injuries are increasing according to the World Health Organization, and this is attributed mainly to road traffic accidents and urban interpersonal violence. Vascular injuries are common in these scenarios and are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Associated peripheral venous trauma is less likely to lead to death and controversy remains whether ligation or repair should be the primary approach. Conversely, non-compressible truncal venous insult can be lethal due to exsanguination, thus a high index of suspicion is crucial. Operative management is demanding with fair results but recent endovascular adjuncts demonstrate promising results and seem to be the way forward for these serious conditions.

Vascular Injury in Orthopedic Trauma

Vascular injury in orthopedic trauma is challenging. The risk to life and limb can be high, and clinical signs initially can be subtle. Recognition and management should be a critical skill for every orthopedic surgeon. There are 5 types of vascular injury: intimal injury (flaps, disruptions, or subintimal/intramural hematomas), complete wall defects with pseudoaneurysms or hemorrhage, complete transections with hemorrhage or occlusion, arteriovenous fistulas, and spasm. Intimal defects and subintimal hematomas with possible secondary occlusion are most commonly associated with blunt trauma, whereas wall defects, complete transections, and arteriovenous fistulas usually occur with penetrating trauma. Spasm can occur after either blunt or penetrating trauma to an extremity and is more common in young patients. Clinical presentation of vascular injury may not be straightforward. Physical examination can be misleading or initially unimpressive; a normal pulse examination may be present in 5% to 15% of patients with vascular injury. Detection and treatment of vascular injuries should take place within the context of the overall resuscitation of the patient according to the established principles of the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocols. Advances in the field, made mostly during times of war, have made limb salvage the rule rather than the exception. Teamwork, familiarity with the often subtle signs of vascular injuries, a high index of suspicion, effective communication, appropriate use of imaging modalities, sound knowledge of relevant technique, and sequence of surgical repairs are among the essential factors that will lead to a successful outcome. This article provides a comprehensive literature review on a subject that generates significant controversy and confusion among clinicians involved in the care of trauma patients. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(4):249-259.].

Meta-analysis of prognostic factors for amputation following surgical repair of lower extremity vascular trauma

Background

Lower extremity vascular trauma (LEVT) is a major cause of amputation. A clear understanding of prognostic factors for amputation is important to inform surgical decision-making, patient counselling and risk stratification. The aim was to develop an understanding of prognostic factors for amputation following surgical repair of LEVT.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify potential prognostic factors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to calculate an absolute (pooled proportion) and relative (pooled odds ratio, OR) measure of the amputation risk for each factor.

Results

Forty-five studies, totalling 3187 discrete LEVT repairs, were included. The overall amputation rate was 10·0 (95 per cent credible interval 7·4 to 13·1) per cent. Significant prognostic factors for secondary amputation included: associated major soft tissue injury (26 versus 8 per cent for no soft tissue injury; OR 5·80), compartment syndrome (28 versus 6 per cent; OR 5·11), multiple arterial injuries (18 versus 9 per cent; OR 4·85), duration of ischaemia exceeding 6 h (24 versus 5 per cent; OR 4·40), associated fracture (14 versus 2 per cent; OR 4·30), mechanism of injury (blast 19 per cent, blunt 16 per cent, penetrating 5 per cent), anatomical site of injury (iliac 18 per cent, popliteal 14 per cent, tibial 10 per cent, femoral 4 per cent), age over 55 years (16 versus 9 per cent; OR 3·03) and sex (men 7 per cent versus women 8 per cent; OR 0·64). Shock and nerve or venous injuries were not significant prognostic factors for secondary amputation.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of patients who undergo lower extremity vascular trauma repair will require secondary amputation. This meta-analysis describes significant prognostic factors needed to inform surgical judgement, risk assessment and patient counselling.

Management of traumatic popliteal vein injuries

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate different repair methods of popliteal vein injuries, and to assess the relationship between early patency and surgical outcome.

METHODS

Thirty patients with popliteal vein injuries underwent surgical repair procedure at our hospital from March 2000 to April 2010. Patients who were haemodynamically unstable and those with massive bleeding from limb wounds were taken directly to the operating room. Stable patients underwent preoperative colour-flow duplex ultrasonography (CFDU).

RESULTS

Our study group consisted of 26 males and 4 females, ranging in age from 17 to 60 years with a mean age of 25.3 ± 5.9 years. The mechanism of trauma was penetrating in 27 patients and blunt in the remaining 3 patients. Treatment included primary venous repair in 11 cases, end-to-end anastomosis in 8, interposition vein graft in 10, and interposition polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft in 1. There were 26 patients with associated arterial injury, of which 4 cases had primary repair, 9 had end-to-end anastomosis, 11 had saphenous vein graft interposition, and 2 had PTFE graft interposition. Associated bone fracture was seen in 6 patients. There were no deaths. One patient required a below-knee amputation. Postoperative CFDU revealed thrombosed venous repair in 7 cases without any sequelae.

CONCLUSION

Popliteal venous injuries can be repaired with minimal downside and a good early patency rate. Additionally, transient venous patency allows for establishment of venous and lymphatic collateralisation. Alternatively, venous ligation should be considered only in unstable patients who refuse blood transfusion (Jehovah's witnesses). In these victims, adjuvant management may be required such as the use of fasciotomy and anticoagulation treatment.