The fallacy of a roadmap computed tomography after an abdominal gunshot wound: A road that leads to nowhere.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 Western Trauma Association guidelines recommend an abdominopelvic computed tomography (CTAP) in patients with a question of abdominal penetration after a gunshot wound. However, it is common practice to obtain a CTAP to provide a roadmap for an operation or to potentially alter management even in patients with classic indications for a laparotomy. The hypothesis for this study was that a CTAP for preoperative planning has no value in patients with an abdominal gunshot wound. METHODS: This was a retrospective study from 2017 to 2022 of patients with an abdominal gunshot wound who had a preoperative CTAP. Data collection included clinical characteristics and CTAP and operative findings. Admission hypotension, abdominal pain and/or peritonitis, evisceration, and a transabdominal trajectory were considered clear indications for laparotomy. Computed tomography and operative findings were compared to determine concordance and if computed tomography altered management. RESULTS: There were 149 patients included in the study, of which 72.5% had a clear indication for laparotomy. The CTAP findings were concordant with operative findings in 57.0% of patients, while additional injuries were found at laparotomy in 36.2% of patients. Based on CTAP, a negative diagnostic angiogram was performed in three patients (2.0%). Three patients (2.0%) underwent a trial of nonoperative management based on CTAP findings. All underwent laparotomy after a clinical change. Six patients (4.0%) had a nontherapeutic operation; all patients had findings suspicious for either a hollow viscous injury or a vascular injury on preoperative imaging. CONCLUSION: While a CTAP scan may help to define an intra-abdominal trajectory when the trajectory is unclear, it does not alter management in those with indications for operation. In addition, CTAP missed injuries in a third of patients and contributed to all six nontherapeutic laparotomies. A preoperative CTAP has minimal value in patients who have indications for an operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level IV.

More Harm Than Good: It is Time to Reconsider Prophylactic Fasciotomy in Lower-Extremity Vascular Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Four-compartment calf fasciotomy (CF) can be limb-saving. Prophylactic fasciotomy (PP) is advised in high-risk situations to prevent limb loss. Calf fasciotomy can cause significant morbidity, particularly if performed unnecessarily. We hypothesized that selective use of fasciotomies (SF) after lower-extremity vascular injury would lead to a lower rate of overall fasciotomies without an increase in limb complications than prophylactic fasciotomies (PFs). METHODS: Trauma patients who sustained lower-extremity vascular injury that required operative repair at a high-volume trauma center were retrospectively reviewed and grouped by SF or PF (2016-2022). SF were individuals who were observed and underwent CF only if signs of compartment syndrome developed, whereas PF were individuals who underwent CF without signs of compartment syndrome. The primary outcome was amputation rate. Secondary outcomes were fasciotomy rate, need for reoperative vascular surgery, and clinical characteristics predisposing use of PF. RESULTS: Of 101 overall patients, 30 patients (29.4%) had PF. Of the remaining 71 (SF group), 43.7% (n = 31) were spared CF. The median time from injury to vascular repair in both groups was the same (7 hours, P = .15). There was no difference in rate of vascular reoperation per group (PF = 26.7% vs SF = 23.9%, P = .77). The only clinical characteristic associated with PF was need for arterial shunt (OR 4.2, P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: In trauma patients with lower-extremity vascular injury undergoing vascular repair, selective use of fasciotomy can spare almost half of patients the need for fasciotomy without an increase in limb complications.

A pseudo-dilemma: Are we over-diagnosing and over-treating traumatic splenic intraparenchymal pseudoaneurysms?

BACKGROUND: Splenic embolization for traumatic vascular abnormalities in stable patients is a common practice. We hypothesize that modern contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) over diagnoses posttraumatic splenic vascular lesions, such as intraparenchymal pseudoaneurysms (PSA) that may not require embolization. METHODS: We reviewed the experience at our high-volume center with endovascular management of blunt splenic injuries from January 2016 to December 2021. Multidisciplinary review was used to compared initial CT findings with subsequent angiography, analyzing management and outcomes of identified vascular lesions. RESULTS: Of 853 splenic injuries managed overall during the study period, 255 (29.9%) underwent angiography of the spleen at any point during hospitalization. Vascular lesions were identified on 58% of initial CTs; extravasation (12.2%) and PSA (51.0%). Angiography was performed a mean of 22 hours after admission, with 38% done within 6 hours. Embolization was performed for 90.5% (231) of patients. Among the 130 patients with PSA on initial CT, 36 (27.7%) had no visible lesion on subsequent angiogram. From the 125 individuals who did not have a PSA identified on their initial CT, 67 (54%) had a PSA seen on subsequent angiography. On postembolization CT at 48 hours to 72 hours, persistently perfused splenic PSAs were seen in 41.0% (48/117) of those with and 22.2% (2/9) without embolization. Only one of 24 (4.1%) patients with PSA on angiography observed without embolization required delayed splenectomy, whereas 6.9% (16/231) in the embolized group had splenectomy at a mean of 5.5 ± 4 days after admission. CONCLUSION: There is a high rate of discordance between CT and angiographic identification of splenic PSAs. Even when identified at angiogram and embolized, close to half will remain perfused on follow-up imaging. These findings question the use of routine angioembolization for all splenic PSAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Operative Management of Aerodigestive Injuries: Improved Survival Over two Decades.

INTRODUCTION: Non-iatrogenic aerodigestive injuries are infrequent but potentially fatal. We hypothesize that advances in management and adoption of innovative therapies resulted in improved survival. METHODS: Trauma registry review at a university Level 1 center from 2000 to 2020 that identified adults with aerodigestive injuries requiring operative or endoluminal intervention. Demographics, injuries, operations, and outcomes were abstracted. Univariate analysis was performed, P < .05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: 95 patients had 105 injuries: 68 tracheal and 37 esophageal (including 10 combined). Mean age 30.9 (± 14), 87.4% male, 82.1% penetrating, and 28.4% with vascular injuries. Median ISS, chest AIS, admission BP, Shock Index, and lactate were 26 (16-34), 4 (3-4), 132 (113-149) mmHg, .8 (.7-1.1), and 3.1 (2.4-5.6) mmol/L, respectively. There were 46 cervical and 22 thoracic airway injuries; 5 patients in extremis required preoperative ECMO. 66 airway injuries were surgically repaired and 2 definitively managed with endobronchial stents. There were 24 cervical, 11 thoracic, 2 abdominal esophageal injuries-all repaired surgically. Combined tracheoesophageal injuries were individually managed and buttressed. 4 airway complications were successfully managed, and 11 esophageal complications managed conservatively, stented, or resected. Mortality was 9.6%, half from intraoperative hemorrhage. Specific mortality: tracheobronchial 8.8%, esophageal 10.8%, and combined 20%. Mortality was significantly associated with higher ISS (P = .01), vascular injury (P = .007), blunt mechanism (P = .01), bronchial injury (P = .01), and years 2000-2010 (P = .03), but not combined tracheobronchial injury. CONCLUSION: Mortality is associated with several variables, including vascular trauma and years 2000-2010. The use of ECMO and endoluminal stents in highly selected patients and institutional experience may account for 97.8% survival over the past decade.

Time to Splenic Angioembolization Does Not Impact Splenic Salvage Rates.

We aimed to determine whether early (<6 hours) vs delayed (≥6 hours) splenic angioembolization (SAE) after blunt splenic trauma (grades II-V) impacted splenic salvage rates at a level I trauma center (2016-2021). The primary outcome was delayed splenectomy by timing of SAE. Mean time of SAE was determined for those who failed vs those who had successful splenic salvage. We retrospectively identified 226 individuals, from which 76 (33.6%) were in the early group and 150 (66.4%) were in the delayed group. The early group had higher AAST grade, greater amount of hemoperitoneum on CT, and 3.9x greater odds of undergoing delayed splenectomy (P = .046). Time to embolization was shorter in the group that failed splenic salvage (5 vs 10 hours, P = .051). On multivariate analysis, timing of SAE had no effect on splenic salvage. This study supports performing SAE on an urgent rather than emergent basis in stable patients after blunt splenic injury.

A Cautionary Tale: The Use of Propensity Matching to Evaluate Hemorrhage-Related Trauma Mortality in the American College of Surgeons TQIP Database.

BACKGROUND: Propensity-matched methods are increasingly being applied to the American College of Surgeons TQIP database to evaluate hemorrhage control interventions. We used variation in systolic blood pressure (SBP) to demonstrate flaws in this approach. STUDY DESIGN: Patients were divided into groups based on initial SBP (iSBP) and SBP at 1 hour (2017 to 2019). Groups were defined as follows: iSBP 90 mmHg or less who decompensated to 60 mmHg or less (immediate decompensation [ID]), iSBP 90 mmHg or less who remained greater than 60 mmHg (stable hypotension [SH]), and iSBP greater than 90 mmHg who decompensated to 60 mmHg or less (delayed decompensation [DD]). Individuals with Head or Spine Abbreviated Injury Scale score 3 or greater were excluded. Propensity score was assigned using demographic and clinical variables. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, emergency department death, and overall length of stay. RESULTS: Propensity matching yielded 4,640 patients per group in analysis #1 (SH vs DD) and 5,250 patients per group in analysis #2 (SH vs ID). The DD and ID groups had 2-fold higher in-hospital mortality than the SH group (DD 30% vs 15%, p < 0.001; ID 41% vs 18%, p < 0.001). Emergency department death rate was 3 times higher in the DD group and 5 times higher in the ID group (p < 0.001), and length of stay was 4 days shorter in the DD group and 1 day shorter in the ID group (p < 0.001). Odds of death were 2.6 times higher for the DD vs SH group and 3.2 times higher for the ID vs SH group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in mortality rate by SBP variation underscore the difficulty of identifying individuals with a similar degree of hemorrhagic shock using the American College of Surgeons TQIP database despite propensity matching. Large databases lack the detailed data needed to rigorously evaluate hemorrhage control interventions.

Angioembolization May Improve Survival in Patients With Severe Hepatic Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Although reports on angioembolization (AE) show favorable results for severe hepatic trauma, information is lacking on its benefit in the management and mechanisms of injury (MOI). This study examined patient outcomes with severe hepatic injuries to determine the association of in-hospital mortality with AE. The hypothesis is that AE is associated with increased survival in severe hepatic injuries. METHODS: Demographics, age, sex, MOI, shock index (SI), ≥6 units packed red blood cells (PRBCs) per hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, injury severity score (ISS), and AE were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Patients were stratified into groups according to MOI, AE, and operative vs non-operative management. Multivariable logistic regression determined the independent association of mortality with AE vs no AE and operative vs nonoperative management and modeled the odds of mortality controlling for MOI, AE vs no AE, age and ISS groups, SI >.9, and ≥6 units PRBCs/LOS. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2018, 2462 patients (1744 blunt; 718 penetrating) were treated for severe hepatic injuries. AE was used in only 21% of patients. Mortality rates increased with higher ISS and age. AE was associated with mortality when compared to patients who did not undergo AE. The strongest associations with mortality were ISS ≥25, transfusion ≥ 6 units PRBCs/LOS, and age ≥65 years. CONCLUSIONS: AE is underutilized in severe hepatic trauma. AE may be a valuable adjunct in the treatment of severe hepatic injuries especially in older patients and those needing exploratory laparotomy.

Robert James Graves (1796-1853), The Irish School of Medicine, and Graves' Disease.

Robert James Graves, a native of Dublin, Ireland, was a physician rather than a surgeon; however, his name is well-known to all general and endocrine surgeons. He was born in Dublin, Ireland, and received his BA and MB degrees from Trinity College (formerly, Dublin University). After further studies throughout Europe, he received his "licentiate" from the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland in 1820 and was appointed Physician to the Meath Hospital in Dublin in 1821. Graves received many honors during his career including the following: King's Professor in the Institute of Medicine (1824); President of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland (1843-44); and a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS, 1849). In addition, he was a prominent member of the Irish School of Medicine which also included William Stokes (1804-1878) (Cheyne-Stokes breathing, Stokes-Adams attacks) and Dominic Corrigan (1802-1880) (Corrigan's pulse). Graves' description of exophthalmic goiter was in 1835, some 49 years after that of Caleb Hillier Parry (1755-1822) of Bath, England; however, Bath's report was not published till 1825 or 3 years after his death. Graves' disease is still the eponym applied to this form of hyperthyroidism in the United States.

Not All Fluid Collections Are Created Equal: Clinical Course and Outcomes of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Acute Peripancreatic Fluid Collections Requiring Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on pancreatic pseudocyst (PP) management has mostly involved large database analysis, which limits understanding of a complex and heterogeneous disease. We aimed to review the clinical course and outcomes of PP and acute peripancreatic fluid collections (APFC) that require intervention at 1 high-volume center. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with APFC and PP undergoing drainage (2011-2018) was performed. Patients were divided into groups based on initial intervention: surgical (SR), percutaneous (PC), or endoscopic (EN) drainage. Primary outcome was mortality by initial intervention type. Secondary outcomes included subsequent interventions required, length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Of 88 patients, 40 (46.1%) underwent SR, 40 (44.9%) PC, and 8 (9.0%) EN. No patients in EN group had APACHE II scores>20. Pancreatic necrosis was higher in SR (80.5%) and PC (62.5%) groups (P = .006). There were no differences in mortality, LOS, or readmission rates. Ten patients in the PC group underwent subsequent surgical intervention, of which 9 were due to bowel ischemia. The PC group was 3.4 times more likely to be discharged to rehabilitation over home when compared to the other 2 groups (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing surgical or percutaneous drainage of APFC and PP have a greater burden of illness and more local complications requiring intervention compared to endoscopic drainage. The heterogeneity in presentation of peripancreatic fluid collections in acute pancreatitis must be considered when evaluating the benefits of each intervention.

Frederic Eugene Basil Foley (1891-1966) and the Foley-type Balloon Catheter.

The history and physician behind the eponym for the commonly utilized Foley catheter.

Two Urgency Categories, Same Outcome: No Difference After "Therapeutic" vs. "Prophylactic" Fasciotomy.

OBJECTIVES: Fasciotomy to treat or prevent compartment syndromes in patients with truncal or peripheral arterial injuries is a valuable adjunct. The objective of this study was to document the current incidence, indications, and outcomes of below knee fasciotomy in patients with femoropopliteal arterial injuries. METHODS: The PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma was utilized to identify patients undergoing two-incision four-compartment fasciotomy of the leg after repair of a femoropopliteal arterial injury. Outcomes after therapeutic versus prophylactic (surgeon label) fasciotomy were compared as was the technique of closure, that is, primary skin closure or application of a split-thickness skin graft (STSG). RESULTS: From 2013 to 2018, fasciotomy was performed in 158 patients overall, including 95.6% (151/158) at the initial operation. In the group of 139 patients who survived to discharge, fasciotomies were labeled as therapeutic in 58.3% (81/139) and prophylactic in 41.7% (58/139). There were no significant differences between the therapeutic and prophylactic groups in amputation rates (14.8% vs. 8.6%, P = .919). Primary skin closure was achieved at a median of 5.0 days vs. 11.0 days for STSG (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 55% of patients undergoing repair of an injury to a femoral or popliteal artery have a fasciotomy performed at the same operation. A "therapeutic" indication for fasciotomy continues to be more common than "prophylactic," while outcomes are identical in both groups.

Contemporary Management and Outcomes of Injuries to the Inferior Vena Cava: A Prospective Multicenter Trial From PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Injuries to the inferior vena cava (IVC), while uncommon, have a high mortality despite modern advances. The goal of this study is to describe the diagnosis and management in the largest available prospective data set of vascular injuries across anatomic levels of IVC injury. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry was queried from November 2013 to January 2019. Demographics, diagnostic modalities, injury patterns, and management strategies were recorded and analyzed. Comparisons between anatomic levels were made using non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistics. RESULTS: 140 patients from 19 institutions were identified; median age was 30 years old (IQR 23-41), 75% were male, and 62% had penetrating mechanism. The suprarenal IVC group was associated with blunt mechanism (53% vs 32%, P = .02), had lower admission systolic blood pressure, pH, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and higher ISS and thorax and abdomen AIS than the infrarenal injury group. Injuries were managed with open repair (70%) and ligation (30% overall; infrarenal 37% vs suprarenal 13%, P = .01). Endovascular therapy was used in 2% of cases. Overall mortality was 42% (infrarenal 33% vs suprarenal 66%, P<.001). Among survivors, there was no difference in first 24-hour PRBC transfusion requirement, or hospital or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Current PROOVIT registry data demonstrate continued use of ligation extending to the suprarenal IVC, limited adoption of endovascular management, and no dramatic increase in overall survival compared to previously published studies. Survival is likely related to IVC injury location and total injury burden.

Contemporary management and time to revascularization in upper extremity arterial injury.

INTRODUCTION: Upper extremity arterial injury is associated with significant morbidity and mortality for trauma patients, but there is a paucity of data to guide the clinician in the management of these injuries. The goals of this review were to characterize the demographics, presentation, clinical management, and outcomes, and to evaluate how time to intervention associates with outcomes in trauma patients with upper extremity vascular injuries. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) Research Data Set for the years 2007-2016 was queried in order to identify adult patients (age ≥ 18) with an upper extremity arterial injury. Patients with brachiocephalic, subclavian, axillary, or brachial artery injury using the 1998 and 2005 versions of the Abbreviated Injury Scale were included. Patients with non-survivable injuries to the brain, traumatic amputation, or other major arterial injuries to the torso or lower extremities were excluded. RESULTS: The data from 7908 patients with upper extremity arterial injuries was reviewed. Of those, 5407 (68.4%) underwent repair of the injured artery. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 10 (IQR = 7-18), and 7.7% of patients had a severe ISS (≥ 25). Median time to repair was 120 min (IQR = 60-240 min). Management was open repair in 52.3%, endovascular repair in 7.3%, and combined open and endovascular repairs in 8.8%; amputation occurred in 1.8% and non-operative management was used in 31.6% of patients. Blunt mechanism of injury, crush injury, concomitant fractures/dislocations, and nerve injuries were associated with amputation, whereas simultaneous venous injury was not. There was a significant decrease in the rate of amputation when patients undergoing surgical revascularization did so within 90 min of injury (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Injuries to arteries of the upper extremity are managed with open repair, endovascular repair, and, rarely, amputation. Expeditious transport to the operating room for revascularization is the key for limb salvage.

Postoperative antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation use does not impact complication or reintervention rates after vein repair of arterial injury: A PROOVIT study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of antiplatelet (AP) and anticoagulation (AC) therapy after autogenous vein repair of traumatic arterial injury is controversial. The hypothesis in this study was that there is no difference in early postoperative outcomes regardless of whether AC, AP, both, or neither are used. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry was queried from November, 2013, to January, 2019, for arterial injuries repaired with a vein graft. Demographics and injury characteristics were compared. Need for in-hospital reoperation was the primary outcome in this four-arm study, assessed with two ordinal logistic regression models (1. no therapy vs. AC only vs. AC and AP; 2. no therapy vs. AP only vs. AC and AP). RESULTS: 373 patients (52 no therapy, 88 AP only, 77 AC only, 156 both) from 19 centers with recorded Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were identified. Patients who received no therapy were younger than those who received AP (27.0 vs. 34.2, p = 0.02), had higher transfusion requirement (p < 0.01 between all groups) and a different distribution of anatomic injury (p < 0.01). After controlling for age, sex, ISS, platelet count, hemoglobin, pH, lactate, INR, transfusion requirement and anatomic location, there was no association with postoperative medical therapy and in-hospital operative reintervention, or any secondary outcome, including thrombosis (p = 0.67, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Neither AC nor AP alone, nor in combination, impact complication rate after arterial repair with autologous vein. These patients can be safely treated with or without antithrombotics, recognizing that this study did not demonstrate a beneficial effect.

Howard Atwood Kelly (1858-1943) and the Kelly Clamp.

While the Kelly clamp remains one of the most utilized instruments in a host of surgical procedures, the namesake of this instrument has become unfamiliar to many modern practitioners and trainees. Howard Atwood Kelly was one of the "Big Four" founding professors at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Donald Church Balfour (1882-1963) and The Balfour Self-Retaining Abdominal Retractor.

Donald Church Balfour, MD (1882-1963), a legendary general surgeon at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, first described the Balfour self-retaining abdominal retractor in 1912. The retractor remains in use in 2022, 110 years after its development.

Treatment of penetrating cardiac wounds for the general surgeon on call.

ABSTRACT: "Scoop and run" approaches for severely injured patients have been adopted by emergency medical services over the past 40 years. This has resulted in more patients with severe injuries including penetrating cardiac wounds arriving at trauma centers and other acute care hospitals. General surgery trauma teams and general surgeons taking trauma call are the first responders for diagnosis, resuscitation, and operative management of injured patients. By natural selection, 96% to 98% of patients with signs of life on arrival to the trauma center after sustaining a penetrating cardiac wound have injuries that are amenable to repair by a general surgeon, fellow, or senior surgical resident without the need for a cardiothoracic surgeon or cardiopulmonary bypass.This literature and experience-based review summarizes the diagnostic and operative approaches that should be known by all trauma teams and general surgeons taking trauma call. In addition, it describes when a cardiothoracic surgeon should be consulted and briefly reviews how complex penetrating cardiac injuries are repaired.