Time is domain: factors affecting primary fascial closure after trauma and non-trauma damage control laparotomy (data from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter registry).

PURPOSE: Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is used for both traumatic and non-traumatic indications. Failure to achieve primary fascial closure (PFC) in a timely fashion has been associated with complications including sepsis, fistula, and mortality. We sought to identify factors associated with time to PFC in a multicenter retrospective cohort. METHODS: We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry, including age, comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, vascular procedures, retained packs, number of re-laparotomies, net fluid balance after 24 h, trauma, and time to first takeback in 12-h increments to identify key factors associated with time to PFC. RESULTS: In total, 368 patients (71.2% trauma, of which 50.6% were penetrating, median ISS 25 [16, 34], with median Apache II score 15 [11, 22] in non-trauma) were in the cohort. Of these, 92.9% of patients achieved PFC at 60.8 ± 72.0 h after 1.6 ± 1.2 re-laparotomies. Each additional re-laparotomy reduced the odds of PFC by 91.5% (95%CI 88.2-93.9%, p < 0.001). Time to first re-laparotomy was highly significant (p < 0.001) in terms of odds of achieving PFC, with no difference between 12 and 24 h to first re-laparotomy (ref), and decreases in odds of PFC of 78.4% (65.8-86.4%, p < 0.001) for first re-laparotomy after 24.1-36 h, 90.8% (84.7-94.4%, p < 0.001) for 36.1-48 h, and 98.1% (96.4-99.0%, p < 0.001) for > 48 h. Trauma patients had increased likelihood of PFC in two separate analyses (p = 0.022 and 0.002). CONCLUSION: Time to re-laparotomy ≤ 24 h and minimizing number of re-laparotomies are highly predictive of rapid achievement of PFC in patients after trauma- and non-trauma DCL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2B.

The tight rope act: A multicenter regional experience of tourniquets in acute trauma resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: As tourniquets have become more prevalent, device use has been questioned. This study sought to characterize the incidence, indication, and efficacy of tourniquet placement in acute trauma resuscitation. METHODS: Nine regional level 1 trauma centers prospectively enrolled for 12 months adult patients (18 years or older) who had a tourniquet placed. Age, sex, mechanism, tourniquet type, indication, applying personnel, location placed, level of occlusion, and degree of hemostasis were collected. Major vascular injury, imaging and operations performed, and outcomes were assessed. Analyses were performed with significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 216 tourniquet applications were reported on 209 patients. There were significantly more male patients (183 [88%]) and penetrating injuries (186 [89%]) with gunshots being most common (127 [61%]). Commercial tourniquets were most often used (205 [95%]). Ninety-two percent were placed in the prehospital setting (by fire/paramedics, 56%; police, 33%; bystanders, 2%). The most common indications were pooling (47%) and pulsatile (32%) hemorrhage. Only 2% were for amputation. The most frequent location was high proximal extremity (70%). Four percent were placed over the wound, and 0.5% were distal to the wound. Only 61% of applications were arterial occlusive. Median application time was 30 minutes (interquartile range, 20-40 minutes). Imaging was performed in 54% of patients. Overall, 36% had a named arterial injury. Tourniquet application failed to achieve hemostasis in 22% of patients with a named vascular injury. There was no difference in hemostasis between those with and without vascular injury (p = 0.12) or between who placed the tourniquet (p = 0.07). Seventy patients (34%) required vascular operations. Thirty-four percent of patients were discharged home without admission. CONCLUSION: Discerning which injuries require tourniquets over pressure dressings remains elusive. Trained responders had high rates of superfluous and inadequate deployments. As tourniquets continue to be disseminated, emphasis should be placed on improving education, device development, and quality control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, Level III.