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.

Timing of intervention may influence outcomes in blunt injury to the carotid artery.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt carotid artery injury (BCI) is present in approximately 1.0% to 2.7% of all blunt trauma admissions and can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Management ranges from antithrombotic therapy alone to surgery, where potential indications include pseudoaneurysm, failed or contraindication to medical therapy, and progression of neurologic symptoms. Still, optimal management, including approach and timing, continues to be an active area for debate. The goal of this study was to assess the epidemiologic characteristics of BCI, and, after controlling for presenting features intrinsic to the data, compare outcomes based on management, operative approach, and timing of intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of adult BCI patients identified within the National Trauma Data Bank from 2002 to 2016. The National Trauma Data Bank is the largest trauma database in the United States, collating data from each trauma admission for more than 900 trauma centers. Independent variables of interest included nonoperative versus operative management (OM); endovascular versus open intervention, and early (within 24 hours) versus delayed (after 24 hours) intervention. For each independent variable, groups were compared after propensity score matching to control for presenting factors and patterns of injury. RESULTS: There were 9190 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 812 of whom underwent operative intervention (open, n = 288; endovascular, n = 481, both: n = 43). During the review, there was no difference in proportion of OM over time, although there was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of open intervention (0.48% per year; P < .05). For outcomes, operative versus nonoperative management (nOM) resulted in no difference in mortality, but the operative group demonstrated an increased risk of stroke (11.8% vs 6.5%), longer hospital and intensive care length of stay, and more days on mechanical ventilation (P < .001 for each). With regard to timing: mortality was increased for early intervention (early, 16% vs delayed, 6.3%; P < .001), which was predominantly driven by the endovascular cohort (early, 19.2% vs delayed, 2.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was no significant trend in the overall volume of operative or nOM; however, when considering approach to OM, there was a significant decrease in open procedures. Consistent with previous literature, injury to the neck, head, and chest was significant associated with BCI. Also outcomes demonstrated an increased prevalence of stroke after operative relative to nOM. Importantly, after critically assessing the timing to intervention, results strongly suggested that, if possible, intervention should be delayed for at least 24 hours.

Penetrating Injury to the Carotid Artery: Characterizing Presentation and Outcomes from the National Trauma Data Bank.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating injury to the neck can be devastating because of the multiple vital structures in close proximity. In the event of injury to the carotid artery, there is a significantly increased likelihood of morbidity or mortality. The purpose of this study was to assess presenting characteristics associated with penetrating injury to the carotid artery and directly compare approaches to surgical management. METHODS: Data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2002-2016 were accessed to evaluate adult patients sustaining penetrating injury to the common or internal carotid artery. Management (operative versus nonoperative) and surgical approach (open versus endovascular) were evaluated based on presentation characteristics, and outcomes were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred ninety-one patients fitting inclusion criteria and surviving past the emergency department were included in analyses (nonoperative: 1,976 [58.3%] patients and operative: 1,415 [41.7%] patients). The operative group was further classified by intervention as open = 1,192 patients and endovascular: 154 patients. On presentation, the nonoperative group demonstrated significantly higher prevalence of coma (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8: nonoperative = 49.3% versus operative = 40.8%, P < 0.001), severe overall injury burden (Injury Severity Score ≥25: nonoperative = 42.3% versus operative = 33.3%, P < 0.001), and severe head injury (Abbreviated Injury Score ≥ 3: nonoperative = 44.9% versus operative = 22.0%, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, the nonoperative group demonstrated higher mortality (nonoperative = 28.9% versus operative = 18.5%, P < 0.001), and lower rates of stroke (nonoperative = 6.6% versus operative - = 10.5%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes relating to surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that nonoperative patients often present with a more severe overall injury burden, particularly injury to the head, and not surprisingly, have higher rates of mortality. The lack of significant differences in outcomes relating to surgical approach indicates open versus endovascular invention should be individualized to the patient-for example, based on presenting characteristics and the location of the injury.

History of the Innovation of Damage Control for Management of Trauma Patients: 1902-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To review the history of the innovation of damage control (DC) for management of trauma patients. BACKGROUND: DC is an important development in trauma care that provides a valuable case study in surgical innovation. METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases (1950-2015), conference abstracts (2009-2013), Web sites, textbooks, and bibliographies for articles relating to trauma DC. The innovation of DC was then classified according to the Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study model of surgical innovation. RESULTS: The "innovation" of DC originated from the use of therapeutic liver packing, a practice that had previously been abandoned after World War II because of adverse events. It then "developed" into abbreviated laparotomy using "rapid conservative operative techniques." Subsequent "exploration" resulted in the application of DC to increasingly complex abdominal injuries and thoracic, peripheral vascular, and orthopedic injuries. Increasing use of DC laparotomy was followed by growing reports of postinjury abdominal compartment syndrome and prophylactic use of the open abdomen to prevent intra-abdominal hypertension after DC laparotomy. By the year 2000, DC surgery had been widely adopted and was recommended for use in surgical journals, textbooks, and teaching courses ("assessment" stage of innovation). "Long-term study" of DC is raising questions about whether the procedure should be used more selectively in the context of improving resuscitation practices. CONCLUSIONS: The history of the innovation of DC illustrates how a previously abandoned surgical technique was adapted and readopted in response to an increased understanding of trauma patient physiology and changing injury patterns and trauma resuscitation practices.

Penetrating Cervical Trauma. "Current Concepts in Penetrating Trauma", IATSIC Symposium, International Surgical Society, Helsinki, Finland, August 25-29, 2013.

Patients with penetrating wounds to the neck present with overt symptoms and/or signs or are asymptomatic or modestly/moderately symptomatic. With overt symptoms and/or signs, immediate resuscitation and an emergency operation are appropriate. Asymptomatic patients or those with modest or moderate symptoms and/or signs undergo observation or a diagnostic evaluation to avoid the 45% "negative" exploration rate documented in the past (denominator = all patients). Asymptomatic patients with penetration of the platysma muscle, but no signs of a visceral or vascular injury, should undergo serial physical examinations every 6-8 for 24-36 h before discharge. Noncontrast CT does not add to the accuracy of serial physical examinations. In stable patients with a variety of modest/moderate symptoms or signs possibly related to an injury to the carotid artery, CT-arteriography has become the diagnostic modality of choice. Patients with possible injuries to the cervical esophagus are often still evaluated with a Gastrografin swallow and, if needed, a "thin" barium swallow prior to fiberoptic esophagoscopy. CT-esophagograms are likely to replace these time-honored studies in the near future. Over 85% of patients with injuries to the trachea present with overt symptoms or signs, while the remainder have historically been evaluated with laryngoscopy and fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Again, cervical multislice CT is likely to replace these studies. Operative repair of the carotid artery with 6-0 polypropylene sutures requires heparinization and shunting on rare occasions. Both the trachea and esophagus are repaired with 3-0 absorbable sutures, and tracheostomy and esophageal diversion are used in only large and/or complex injuries. Sternal head or sternocleiodomastoid interposition flaps are used when combined visceral and vascular injuries are present.

Retrospective review of injury severity, interventions and outcomes among helicopter and nonhelicopter transport patients at a Level 1 urban trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: Air ambulance transport for injured patients is vitally important given increasing patient volumes, the limited number of trauma centres and inadequate subspecialty coverage in nontrauma hospitals. Air ambulance services have been shown to improve patient outcomes compared with ground transport in select circumstances. Our primary goal was to compare injuries, interventions and outcomes in patients transported by helicopter versus nonhelicopter transport. METHODS: We performed a retrospective 10-year review of 14 440 patients transported to an urban Level 1 trauma centre by helicopter or by other means. We compared injury severity, interventions and mortality between the groups. RESULTS: Patients transported by helicopter had higher median injury severity scores (ISS), regardless of penetrating or blunt injury, and were more likely to have Glasgow Coma Scale scores less than 8, require airway control, receive blood transfusions and require admission to the intensive care unit or operating room than patients transported by other means. Helicopter transport was associated with reduced overall mortality (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.39). Patients transported by other methods were more likely to die in the emergency department. The mean ISS, regardless of transport method, rose from 12.3 to 15.1 (p = 0.011) during our study period. CONCLUSION: Patients transported by helicopter to an urban trauma centre were more severely injured, required more interventions and had improved survival than those arriving by other means of transport.

CONTEXTE: Le transport par ambulance aérienne pour les polytraumatisés est d'une importance vitale compte tenu du volume croissant de patients, du nombre limité de centres de traumatologie et des effectifs insuffisants en médecine de spécialité dans les hôpitaux dépourvus d'unités de traumatologie. Les services de transport ambulanciers aériens ont la capacité d'améliorer les résultats chez les patients, comparativement au transport terrestre dans certaines situations. Notre objectif principal était de comparer les traumatismes, les interventions et les résultats chez les patients transportés par hélicoptère ou autrement. MÉTHODES: Nous avons procédé à une revue rétrospective sur 10 ans du transport de 14 440 patients vers un centre urbain de traumatologie de niveau 1 par hélicoptère ou autrement. Nous avons comparé la gravité des blessures, les interventions et la mortali té entre les groupes. RÉSULTATS: Les patients transportés par hélicoptère présentaient des indices médians de gravité des blessures plus élevés, indépendamment de la nature ouverte ou fermée des blessures, et ils étaient plus susceptibles de présenter un score inférieur à 8 sur l'échelle de Glasgow, de nécessiter une intubation, de recevoir des transfusions sanguines et d'être admis aux soins intensifs ou au bloc opératoire, comparativement aux patients transportés autrement. Le transport par hélicoptère a été associé à une mortalité globale moins élevée (rapport des cotes 0,41; intervalle de confiance de 95 % 0,33­0,39). Les patients transportés autrement étaient plus susceptibles de mourir à l'urgence. Le score moyen de gravité des blessures, indépendamment du moyen de transport, est passé de 12,3 à 15,1 (p = 0,011) durant la période de l'étude. CONCLUSION: Les patients transportés par hélicoptère vers un centre de traumatologie urbain étaient plus grièvement blessés, nécessitaient plus d'interventions et leur survie a été meilleure que celle des patients transportés autrement.

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.

The impact of a massive transfusion protocol (1:1:1) on major hepatic injuries: does it increase abdominal wall closure rates?

BACKGROUND: Massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) using high plasma and platelet ratios for exsanguinating trauma patients are increasingly popular. Major liver injuries often require massive resuscitations and immediate hemorrhage control. Current published literature describes outcomes among patients with mixed patterns of injury. We sought to identify the effects of an MTP on patients with major liver trauma. METHODS: Patients with grade 3, 4 or 5 liver injuries who required a massive blood component transfusion were analyzed. We compared patients with high plasma:red blood cell:platelet ratio (1:1:1) transfusions (2007-2009) with patients injured before the creation of an institutional MTP (2005-2007). RESULTS: Among 60 patients with major hepatic injuries, 35 (58%) underwent resuscitation after the implementation of an MTP. Patient and injury characteristics were similar between cohorts. Implementation of the MTP significantly improved plasma: red blood cell:platelet ratios and decreased crystalloid fluid resuscitation (p = 0.026). Rapid improvement in early acidosis and coagulopathy was superior with an MTP (p = 0.009). More patients in the MTP group also underwent primary abdominal fascial closure during their hospital stay (p = 0.021). This was most evident with grade 4 injuries (89% vs. 14%). The mean time to fascial closure was 4.2 days. The overall survival rate for all major liver injuries was not affected by an MTP (p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a formal MTP using high plasma and platelet ratios resulted in a substantial increase in abdominal wall approximation. This occurred concurrently to a decrease in the delivered volume of crystalloid fluid.

CONTEXTE: Les protocoles de transfusion massive (PTM) impliquant des rapports plasma:plaquettes élevés sont de plus en plus populaires pour traiter les patients atteints d'un traumatisme hémorragique. Les chirurgies majeures du foie requièrent souvent le déclenchement de protocoles de transfusion massive et une maîtrise immédiate de l'hémorragie. La littérature actuelle décrit les résultats chez des patients victimes de divers types de traumatismes. Nous avons voulu mesurer les effets d'un PTM sur les patients ayant subi un traumatisme majeur au foie. MÉTHODES: Nous avons analysé les dossiers de patients ayant subi des blessures au foie de grade 3, 4 ou 5 qui ont nécessité des transfusions massives de composants sanguins. Nous avons comparé les patients ayant nécessité des transfusions importantes de plasma, de culots globulaires et de plaquettes selon un rapport (1:1:1; 2007­2009) à des patients ayant subi leur traumatisme avant la mise en oeuvre d'un PTM par l'établissement (2005­2007). RÉSULTATS: Sur 50 patients ayant subi des lésions hépatiques majeures, 35 (58%) ont reçu des traitements de réanimation après la mise en place du PTM. Les caractéristiques propres aux patients et à leurs blessures étaient similaires entre les cohortes. L'application du PTM a significativement amélioré les rapports plasma:culots globulaires:plaquettes et réduit l'administration de cristalloïdes à des fins de réanimation liquidienne (p = 0,026). L'amélioration rapide de l'acidose naissante et de la coagulopathie a été meilleure avec le PTM (p = 0,009). Plus de patients du groupe soumis au PTM ont aussi subi une fermeture aponévrotique abdominale primaire durant leur séjour hospitalier (p = 0,021). Cela s'est surtout observé avec les lésions de grade 4 (89% c. 14%). Le délai moyen avant la fermeture aponévrotique a été de 4,2 jours. L'application du PTM n'a pas modifié le taux de survie global pour l'ensemble des traumatismes hépatiques majeurs (p = 0,61). CONCLUSION: La mise en place d'un PTM officiel reposant sur des rapports plasma et plaquettes élevés a donné lieu à une augmentation substantielle des fermetures de la paroi abdominale. Cela s'est produit en parallèle avec une diminution du volume de cristalloïdes administrés pour la réanimation liquidienne.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.