Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

Emergency pancreaticoduodenectomy for complex pancreaticoduodenal damage with multiple organ injuries following blunt abdominal trauma: A case report and literature review

INTRODUCTION

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a complex surgical procedure with significant potential for complications such as pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, intra-abdominal abscesses, and hemorrhage. Emergency pancreaticoduodenectomy (EPD) performed for traumatic injuries carries even greater risks due to the patient's severely unstable condition upon admission. While the literature recommends that EPD be reserved for hemodynamically stable trauma patients, there are scenarios where it may be the last resort to save the patient's life.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 49-year-old male presented in the emergency department after a collision with a truck. He sustained extensive pancreaticoduodenal deconstruction combined with IVC, liver, right kidney, and right adrenal injuries following blunt abdominal trauma. Despite the patient's hemodynamic instability, the surgical team proceeded with EPD combined with IVC repair, right nephrectomy, adrenalectomy, cholecystectomy, and liver hemostasis. Postoperative complications included biliary leakage and intraabdominal abscess, all of which were successfully conservatively managed.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Upon entering the abdomen, the priority was rapid identification and control of the significant bleeding, particularly from the injured IVC. While additional procedures like nephrectomy and adrenalectomy were required, continued bleeding from the crushed pancreatic head left EPD as the only viable option to save the patient.

CONCLUSION

EPD can be a lifesaving procedure for a small portion of trauma patients with non-reconstructable pancreaticoduodenal injury, even in the setting of hemodynamic instability. However, it should only be performed at high-volume centers and by experienced hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeons.

French mobile neurosurgical unit: a retrospective analysis of 22 years of mission

INTRODUCTION

The French mobile neurosurgical unit (MNSU) is used to provide specific support to remote military medicosurgical units deployed in foreign theatres. If a neurosurgical casualty is present, the Role 2 team may request the MNSU to be deployed directly from France. The deployed neurosurgeon can then perform surgery in Role 2 or decide to evacuate the casualty and perform surgery in Role 4 in France. We provide an epidemiological analysis of MNSU missions between 2001 and 2023 and investigate the value of the MNSU for the French Armed Forces.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series that included patients managed by the MNSU from 1 January 2001 to 31 January 2023. We collected epidemiological data (eg, age, military or civilian status, delay between transmission and takeoff, origin of the injury and mission location), clinical records (aetiologies of the injury and disease), data on surgical intervention (operator nature and type of surgery) and data on postoperative outcomes recorded at the time of discharge from hospital.

RESULTS

51 patients were managed by the MNSU. 36 (70.5%) and 3 (5.8%) patients underwent surgery on Role 2 and Role 4, respectively. 39 (76.9%) interventions were due to traumatic injury, 4 (7.8%) due to hydrocephalus, 4 (7.8%) due to vascular causes, 3 (5.9%) due to tumour and 1 (2%) due to spine degeneration. In 30 (76.9%) of these cases, the first operator was a neurosurgeon from the MNSU, whereas in the remaining 9 (23.1%) cases, procedures were initially performed by a non-neurosurgeon.

CONCLUSION

The MNSU contribution to D1 casualties' strategic evacuation (STRATEVAC) is important. The MNSU provides additional support for STRATEVAC during the reorganisation of French Armed Forces engaged in several fronts. With the return of high-intensity wars, the French MNSU must develop and adjust for the management of massive influxes of casualties.

A decade long overview of damage control laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds

PURPOSE

Over the last three decades, damage control laparotomy (DCL) has become important in the management of abdominal gunshot wounds (GSW). This paper reviews the experience of a single institution over a decade with the use of DCL for GSW of the abdomen.

METHODS

Longitudinal data (2013-2022) was collected from the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry database to identify all patients with an abdominal GSW over the study period. The data was stratified based on patients who underwent DCL and those who did not. Descriptive analysis was completed to summarise the raw data. Univariate and multivariate analysis was completed to identify variables associated with undergoing DCL.

RESULTS

There were 135 patients (32%) who underwent DCL and 290 patients (68%) who did not. Colonic, small bowel, mesenteric, hepatic, pancreatic and intra-abdominal vessel injuries were associated with the need for DCL (P<0.05). In total, 85 of the 135 (63%) patients who underwent DCL required more than one damage control technique. There were 45 (33%) mortalities in the DCL group compared to 16 mortalities (6%) in the non-DCL group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

One third of patients who underwent a laparotomy following a gunshot wound to the abdomen had a DCL. The indications for DCL include both physiological criteria and injury patterns. DCL is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Efforts need to be directed towards refining the indications for DCL in this group of patients to prevent inappropriate application of this potentially lifesaving technique.

[Damage Control Resuscitation and Damage Control Surgery]

Trauma triggers complex physiological responses with primary and secondary effects vital to understanding and managing trauma impact. "Damage Control" (DC), a concept adapted from naval practices, refers to abbreviated initial surgical care focused on controlling bleeding and contamination, critical for the survival of severely compromised patients. This impacts anaesthesia procedures and intensive care. "Damage Control Resuscitation" (DCR) is an interdisciplinary approach aimed at reducing mortality in severely injured patients, despite potentially increasing morbidity and ICU duration. Current medical guidelines incorporate DC strategies.DC is most beneficial for patients with severe physiological injury, where surgical trauma ("second hit") poses greater risks than delayed treatment. Patient assessment for DC includes evaluating injury severity, physiological reserves, and anticipated surgical and treatment strain. Inadequate intervention can worsen trauma-induced complications like coagulopathy, acidosis, hypothermia, and hypocalcaemia.DCR focuses on rapidly restoring homeostasis with minimal additional burden. It includes rapid haemostasis, controlled permissive hypotension, early blood transfusion, haemostasis optimization, and temperature normalization, tailored to individual patient needs."Damage Control Surgery" (DCS) involves phases like rapid haemostasis, contamination control, temporary wound closure, intensive stabilization, planned reoperations, and final wound closure. Each phase is crucial for managing severely injured patients, balancing immediate life-saving procedures and preparing for subsequent surgeries.Intensive care post-DCS emphasizes stabilizing patients hemodynamically, metabolically, and coagulopathically while restoring normothermia. Decision-making in trauma care is complex, involving precise patient assessment, treatment prioritization, and team coordination. The potential of AI-based decision support systems is noted for their ability to analyse patient data in real-time, aiding in decision-making through evidence-based recommendations.

Efficacy of damage control orthopedics strategy in the management of lower limb trauma

Background

Little is known about the efficacy of damage control (DC) surgery in the management of lower limb trauma. Here we compared the clinical parameters and complication rates of such patients received either DC or emergency comprehensive (EC) surgery treatment.

Methods

This study is a retrospective study on patients with lower limb trauma that received surgical treatment. Data of 120 patients were divided into DC and EC surgery groups. Clinical parameters obtained at hospital admission and complications during follow-up were analyzed. Injury Severity Score (ISS), Gustilo classification and Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) were used to assess trauma severity, open fractures and viability of injured limb, respectively.

Results

Age, sex, ISS, fracture type, injury site, MESS, operation time, blood loss, pulmonary and cranial injuries were compared. We found that patients in the DC group had more severe injury as reflected by the higher injury severity score (ISS) (28.1 ± 10.9 vs 21.3 ± 7.4, P < 0.001). ISS was also identified as a significant influencer for the treatment selection (P < 0.001). In addition, patients treated with DC surgery demonstrated less complications (7 cases vs 27 cases), which was supported by the propensity score logistic regression analysis (Odd ratio 4.667).

Conclusions

DC surgery is more often selected to treat patients with more severe lower limb injuries, which leads to lower complication rates.

Timing of Re-Laparotomy in Blunt Trauma Patients With Damage-Control Laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) was initially designed to treat patients with severe hemorrhage. There are various opinions on when to return to the operating room after DCL and there are no definitive data on the exact timing of re-laparotomy.

METHODS

All patients at regional referral trauma center requiring a DCL due to blunt trauma between January 2012 and September 2021 (N = 160) were retrospectively reviewed from patients' electronic medical records. The primary fascial closure rate, lengths of intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation, mortality, and complications were compared in patients who underwent re-laparotomy before and after 48 h.

RESULTS

One hundred one patients (70 in the ≤48 h group [early] and 31 in the >48 h group [late]) were included. Baseline patient characteristics of age, body mass index, injury severity score, and initial systolic blood pressure and laboratory finding such as hemoglobin, base excess, and lactate were similar between the two groups. Also, there were no differences in reason for DCL and operation time. The time interval from the DCL to the first re-laparotomy was 39 (29-43) h and 59 (55-66) h in the early and late groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rate of the primary fascial closure rate (91.4% versus 93.5%, P = 1.00), lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (10 [7-18] versus 12 [8-16], P = 0.553), ventilator days (6 [4-10] versus 7 [5-10], P = 0.173), mortality (20.0% versus 19.4%, P = 0.94), and complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of re-laparotomy after DCL due to blunt abdominal trauma should be determined in consideration of various factors such as correction of coagulopathy, primary fascial closure, and complications. This study showed there was no significant difference in patient groups who underwent re-laparotomy before and after 48 h after DCL. Considering these results, it is better to determine the timing of re-laparotomy with a focus on physiologic recovery rather than setting a specific time.

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

ABSTRACT

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

Should surgeon-performed intraoperative ultrasound be the preferred test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries in operative trauma cases?

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic performance of multiple tests for detecting the presence of a main pancreatic duct injury remains poor. Given the central importance of main duct integrity for both subsequent treatment algorithms and patient outcomes, poor test reliability is problematic. The primary aim was to evaluate the comparative test performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries.

METHODS

All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (2010-2021) were evaluated. Patients who received an IOUS pancreas-focused evaluation, with Grades III, IV, and V injuries (main duct injury) were compared with those with Grade I and Grade II trauma (no main duct injury). Test performances were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 248 pancreatic injuries, 74 underwent an IOUS. The additional mix of diagnostic studies (CT, MRCP, ERCP) was variable across grade of injury. Of these 74 IOUS cases for pancreatic injuries, 48 (64.8%) were confirmed as Grades III, IV, or V main duct injuries. The patients were predominantly young (median age = 33, IQR:21-45) blunt injured (70%) males (74%) with severe injury demographics (injury severity score = 28, (IQR:19-36); 30% hemodynamic instability; 91% synchronous intra-abdominal injuries). Thirty-five percent of patients required damage-control surgery. Patient outcomes included a median 13-day hospital length of stay and 1% mortality rate. Test performance was variable across groups (CT = 58% sensitive/77% specific; MRCP = 71% sensitive/100% specific; ERCP = 100% sensitive; IOUS = 98% sensitive/100% specific).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ultrasound is a highly sensitive and specific test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries. This technology is simple to learn, readily available, and should be considered in patients who require concurrent non-damage-control abdominal operations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

Damage Control Surgery and Transfer in Emergency General Surgery

Selective non traumatic emergency surgery patients are targets for damage control surgery (DCS) to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome and the lethal triad. However, DCS is still a subject of controversy. As a concept, DCS describes a series of abbreviated surgical procedures to allow rapid source control of hemorrhage and contamination in patients with circulatory shock to allow resuscitation and stabilization in the intensive care unit followed by delayed return to the operating room for definitive surgical management once the patient becomes physiologic stable. If appropriately applied, the DCS morbidity and mortality can be significantly reduced.

Neuro damage control: current concept and civilian applications

Damage control (DC) initially referred to abbreviated (<1 h) surgical procedures to control abdominal hemorrhage in severe trauma patients, to avoid the 'bloody vicious circle' of hypothermia-coagulopathy-acidosis-hypocalcemia. Progressively, the concept was extended to pre-hospital and peri-operative surgical and non-surgical trauma care. The DC strategy can be applied either in a single severe trauma patient at risk of progression toward the bloody vicious circle or in case of limited or overwhelmed health resources (deprived environment, mass casualties, etc.). DC strategies in neurological casualties have improved over the last decade in military neurosurgeons, but remain poorly codified in civilian settings. In this comprehensive review, we summarize the current concept of neuro-DC, which includes surgical and medical care for neurological injuries as part of a DC strategy. Neuro-DC basically consists in: (i) preventing secondary brain injury; (ii) controlling intracranial bleeding; (iii) controlling intracranial pressure; (iv) limiting contamination of compound wounds; and (v) achieving secondary anatomical restoration.

Successful perioperative management with damage control surgery following cardiac arrest due to massive postpartum hemorrhage: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Although declining, maternal mortality due to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) remains significant. Here we report the case of a 31-year-old primipara patient admitted with cardiac arrest due to PPH.

CASE PRESENTATION

Labor was induced at gestational week 39, and the infant was delivered rapidly. Cardiac arrest due to PPH occurred during the transfer to our hospital, and the patient underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation upon arrival to the emergency room. On admission, her hemoglobin level was 0.7 g/dL and she was in hypovolemic shock. Resuscitation and hysterectomy were performed immediately, including damage control surgery and gauze packing, to control the diffuse oozing bleeding due to severe disseminated intravascular coagulation. Relaparotomy for hemostasis was subsequently performed because of a decrease in hemoglobin level and blood pressure, and gauze packing was reinserted with temporary abdominal closure. Two days later, the abdominal wall was closed after confirming the absence of bleeding and the patient recovered well without further intervention.

CONCLUSION

A prompt and assertive intensive response through collaborative efforts, utilizing feasible damage control surgery, can elegantly salvage uncontrolled bleeding in PPH patients with disseminated intravascular coagulation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe trauma represents a major global public health burden and the management of post-traumatic bleeding continues to challenge healthcare systems around the world. Post-traumatic bleeding and associated traumatic coagulopathy remain leading causes of potentially preventable multiorgan failure and death if not diagnosed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. This sixth edition of the European guideline on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury aims to advise clinicians who care for the bleeding trauma patient during the initial diagnostic and therapeutic phases of patient management.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma included representatives from six European professional societies and convened to assess and update the previous version of this guideline using a structured, evidence-based consensus approach. Structured literature searches covered the period since the last edition of the guideline, but considered evidence cited previously. The format of this edition has been adjusted to reflect the trend towards concise guideline documents that cite only the highest-quality studies and most relevant literature rather than attempting to provide a comprehensive literature review to accompany each recommendation.

RESULTS

This guideline comprises 39 clinical practice recommendations that follow an approximate temporal path for management of the bleeding trauma patient, with recommendations grouped behind key decision points. While approximately one-third of patients who have experienced severe trauma arrive in hospital in a coagulopathic state, a systematic diagnostic and therapeutic approach has been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths attributable to traumatic injury.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidelines are pillars of best practice in the management of severely injured trauma patients. Further improvement in outcomes will be achieved by optimising and standardising trauma care in line with the available evidence across Europe and beyond.

Closed abdominal trauma in polytrauma. Part II: surgical tactics for the damages control

Closed abdominal trauma in polytrauma. Part II: surgical tactics for the damages control

Indications for the surgical management of pancreatic trauma: An update

Pancreatic trauma is rare compared to other abdominal solid organ injuries, accounting for 0.2%-0.3% of all trauma patients. Moreover, this type of injury may frequently be overlooked or not readily appreciated on initial clinical examinations and investigations. The organ injury scale determines the severity of the trauma. Nonetheless, there are conflicting recommendations for the best strategy in severe cases. Overall, conservative management of induced severe traumatic pancreatitis is adequate. Modern imaging modalities such as ultrasound scanning and computed tomography scanning can detect injuries in fewer than 60% of patients. However, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have diagnostic accuracies approaching 90%-100%. Thus, management options include ERCP and stent placement or distal pancreatectomy in cases of complete gland transection and wide drainage only for damage control surgery, which can prevent mortality but increases the risk of morbidity. In the majority of cases, surgical intervention is not required and should be reserved for only severe grade III to grade V injuries.

Single-staged laparotomy versus multiple-staged laparotomy for traumatic massive hemoperitoneum with hemodynamic instability: a single-center, propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Currently, damage control surgery (DCS) employing multiple-staged laparotomy (MSL) is a standard hemostatic approach for treating trauma patients with unstable hemodynamics attributable to massive hemoperitoneum. Based on these findings, we had frequently employed MSL as a part of our hemostatic strategy for the patients, but with unsatisfactory outcomes. On the other hand, with the establishment of damage control resuscitation (DCR), it has become possible to avoid trauma-induced coagulopathy and to achieve adequate hemostasis with single-staged laparotomy (SSL). Consequently, our institutional strategy for surgical hemostasis of the patients has gradually shifted from MSL to SSL with implementation of DCR. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact of this shift in the strategy by comparing outcomes of the patients between those underwent MSL and those underwent SSL employing propensity score matching.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center, observational study evaluated outcomes of hemodynamically unstable patients with traumatic massive hemoperitoneum requiring surgical intervention between 2005 and 2020. The patient population was divided into two groups: a SSL group and a MSL group. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics in the two groups, a one-to-one matched analysis using nearest-neighbor matching was performed based on the estimated propensity score of each group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were 48-h mortality and 28-day mortality.

Results

A total of 170 patients met the inclusion criteria; 141 patients underwent SSL, and 29 underwent MSL. In the propensity-matched analysis with 27 pairs, the SSL group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.154; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.035 to 0.682) and 28-day mortality (OR 0.200; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.913) than the MSL group, but the 48-h mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (25.9% vs. 44.4%; OR 0.375; 95% CI 0.099–1.414).

Conclusions

Single-staged laparotomy may be an effective surgical treatment for the traumatic massive hemoperitoneum cases with hemodynamic instability, if conducted following sufficient damage control resuscitation and performed by an experienced surgeon.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01660-6.

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.

Status quo of the use of DCS concepts and outcome with focus on blunt abdominal trauma : A registry-based analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®

INTRODUCTION

Damage control surgery (DCS) is a standardized treatment concept in severe abdominal injury. Despite its evident advantages, DCS bears the risk of substantial morbidity and mortality, due to open abdomen therapy (OAT). Thus, identifying the suitable patients for that approach is of utmost importance. Furthermore, little is known about the use of DCS and the related outcome, especially in blunt abdominal trauma.

METHODS

Patients recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU® from 2008 to 2017, and with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9 and an abdominal injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 3 were included in that registry-based analysis. Patients with DCS and temporary abdominal closure (TAC) were compared with patients who were treated with a laparotomy and primary closure (non-DCS) and those who did receive non-operative management (NOM). Following descriptive analysis, a matched-pairs study was conducted to evaluate differences and outcomes between DCS and non-DCS group. Matching criteria were age, abdominal trauma severity, and hemodynamical instability at the scene.

RESULTS

The injury mechanism was predominantly blunt (87.1%). Of the 8226 patients included, 2351 received NOM, 5011 underwent laparotomy and primary abdominal closure (non-DCS), and 864 were managed with DCS. Thus, 785 patient pairs were analysed. The rate of hepatic injuries AIS > 3 differed between the groups (DCS 50.3% vs. non-DCS 18.1%). DCS patients had a higher ISS (p = 0.023), required more significant volumes of fluids, more catecholamines, and transfusions (p < 0.001). More DCS patients were in shock at the accident scene (p = 0.022). DCS patients had a higher number of severe hepatic (AIS score ≥ 3) and gastrointestinal injuries and more vascular injuries. Most severe abdominal injuries in non-DCS patients were splenic injuries (AIS, 4 and 5) (52.1% versus 37.9%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

DCS is a strategy used in unstable trauma patients, severe hepatic, gastrointestinal, multiple abdominal injuries, and mass transfusions. The expected survival rates were achieved in such extreme trauma situations.

Does drainage or resection predict subsequent interventions and long-term quality of life in patients with Grade IV pancreatic injuries: A population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise remains significant for the treatment of Grade IV pancreatic injuries in stable patients (i.e., drainage vs. resection). The literature is poor in regards to experience, confirmed main pancreatic ductal injury, nuanced multidisciplinary treatment, and long-term patient quality of life (QOL). The primary aim was to evaluate the management and outcomes (including long-term QOL) associated with Grade IV pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (1995-2020) were evaluated (Grade IV injuries compared). Concordance of perioperative imaging, intraoperative exploration, and pathological reporting with a main pancreatic ductal injury was required. Patients with resection of Grade IV injuries were compared with drainage alone. Long-term QOL was evaluated (Standard Short Form-36).

RESULTS

Of 475 pancreatic injuries, 36(8%) were confirmed as Grade IV. Twenty-four (67%) underwent a pancreatic resection (29% pancreatoduodenectomy; 71% extended distal pancreatectomy [EDP]). Patient, injury and procedure demographics were similar between resection and drainage groups (p > 0.05). Pancreas-specific complications in the drainage group included 92% pancreatic leaks, 8% pseudocyst, and 8% walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Among patients with controlled pancreatic fistulas beyond 90 days, 67% required subsequent pancreatic operations (fistulo-jejunostomy or EDP). Among patients whose fistulas closed, 75% suffered from recurrent pancreatitis (67% eventually undergoing a Frey or EDP). All patients in the resection group had fistula closure by 64 days after injury. The median number of pancreas-related health care encounters following discharge was higher in the drainage group (9 vs. 5; p = 0.012). Long-term (median follow-up = 9 years) total QOL, mental and physical health scores were higher in the initial resection group (p = 0.031, 0.022 and 0.017 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The immediate, intermediate and long-term experiences for patients who sustain Grade IV pancreatic injuries indicate that resection is the preferred option, when possible. The majority of drainage patients will require additional, delayed pancreas-targeted surgical interventions and report poorer long-term QOL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiology/Prognostic, Level III.