Identification of neutrophil phenotype categories in geriatric hip fracture patients aids in personalized medicine.

Objectives: The number of geriatric hip fracture patients is high and expected to rise in the coming years, and many are frail and at risk for adverse outcomes. Early identification of high-risk patients is crucial to balance treatment and optimize outcome, but remains challenging. Previous research in patients with multitrauma suggested that neutrophil phenotype analysis could aid in early identification of high-risk patients. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and clinical value of neutrophil phenotype analysis in geriatric patients with a hip fracture. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in a regional teaching hospital in the Netherlands. At the emergency department, blood samples were collected from geriatric patients with a hip fracture and analyzed using automated flow cytometry. Flow cytometry data were processed using an automated clustering algorithm. Neutrophil activation data were compared with a healthy control cohort. Neutrophil phenotype categories were assessed based on two-dimensional visual assessment of CD16/CD62L expression. Results: Blood samples from 45 geriatric patients with a hip fracture were included. Neutrophils showed an increased activation profile and decreased responsiveness to formyl peptides when compared to healthy controls. The neutrophil phenotype of all patients was categorized. The incidence of severe adverse outcome was significantly different between the different categories (P = 0.0331). Moreover, patients with neutrophil phenotype category 0 developed no severe adverse outcomes. Conclusions: Using point-of-care fully automated flow cytometry to analyze the neutrophil compartment in geriatric hip fracture patients is feasible and holds clinical value in determining patients at risk for adverse outcome. This study is a first step toward immuno-based precision medicine for identifying geriatric hip fracture patients that are deemed fit for surgery.

Management of pediatric blunt abdominal trauma in a Dutch level one trauma center.

PURPOSE: Most children with intra-abdominal injuries can be managed non-operatively. However, in Europe, there are many different healthcare systems for the treatment of pediatric trauma patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the management strategies and outcomes of all pediatric patients with blunt intra-abdominal injuries in our unique dedicated pediatric trauma center with a pediatric trauma surgeon. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study to investigate the management of pediatric patients with blunt abdominal trauma. From the National Trauma Registration database, we retrospectively identified pediatric (≤ 18 years) patients with blunt abdominal injuries admitted to the UMCU from January 2012 till January 2018. RESULTS: A total of 121 pediatric patients were included in the study. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of patients was 12 (8-16) years, and the median ISS was 16 (9-25). High-grade liver injuries were found in 12 patients. Three patients had a pancreas injury grade V. Furthermore, 2 (1.6%) patients had urethra injuries and 10 (8.2%) hollow viscus injuries were found. Eighteen (14.9%) patients required a laparotomy and 4 (3.3%) patients underwent angiographic embolization. In 6 (5.0%) patients, complications were found and in 4 (3.3%) children intervention was needed for their complication. No mortality was seen in patients treated non-operatively. One patient died in the operative management group. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, it is safe to treat most children with blunt abdominal injuries non-operatively if monitoring is adequate. These decisions should be made by the clinicians operating on these children, who should be an integral part of the entire group of treating physicians. Surgical interventions are only needed in case of hemodynamic instability or specific injuries such as bowel perforation.

Predictors of surgical management of high grade blunt splenic injuries in adult trauma patients: a 5-year retrospective cohort study from an academic level I trauma center.

BACKGROUNDS: Splenic injury accounts for 40% of all injuries after blunt abdominal trauma. Blunt splenic injury in hemodynamically unstable patients is preferably treated by splenectomy. Nowadays hemodynamically stable patients with low grade splenic injuries are mostly treated by non-operative management (NOM). However no consensus exists about the management of high grade splenic injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze patients with high grade splenic injuries in our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients with a splenic injury presented to our level I trauma center during the 5-year period from January 1, 2012, until December 31, 2017. Baseline characteristics, data regarding complications and mortality were collected from the electronic patient registry. Patients were grouped based on splenic injury and the treatment they received. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included, of which 93 (75.6%) were male with a median age of 31 (24-52) and a median injury severity score of 27 (17-34). High grade injuries (n = 28) consisted of 20 Grade IV injuries and 8 grade V injuries. Splenectomy was required in 15/28 (53.6%) patients, of whom all remained hemodynamically unstable after resuscitation, including all grade V injuries. A total of 13 patients with high grade injuries were treated with spleen preserving therapy. Seven of these patients received angio-embolization. One patient went for laparotomy and the spleen was treated with a hemostatic agent. Secondary hemorrhage was present in 3 of these patients (initial treatment: 1 embolization/ 2 observational), resulting in a success rate of 76.9%. There is no mortality seen in patient with high grade splenic injuries. CONCLUSION: Non-operative treatment in high grade splenic injuries is a safe treatment modality in hemodynamically stable patients. Hemodynamic status and peroperative bleeding, not injury severity or splenic injury grade were the drivers for surgical management by splenectomy. This selected cohort of patients must be closely monitored to prevent adverse outcomes from secondary delayed bleeding in case of non-operative management.