Effect of Post-splenectomy Booster Vaccine Program on Vaccination Compliance in Trauma Patients.

OBJECTIVE: In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Council on Immunization Practice recommended an additional post-splenectomy booster vaccine at 8 weeks following the initial vaccine. The objective of this study was to evaluate our vaccination compliance rate and what sociodemographic factors were associated with noncompliance following this recommendation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a performance improvement database of trauma patients eligible for post-splenectomy vaccination (PSV) at a level I trauma center was carried out between 2009 and 2018. Overall and institutional compliance with PSV was compared before and after the addition of booster vaccine recommendation. Factors associated with booster noncompliance were also identified. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were identified. PSV compliance rate in the pre-booster was 98.4%, while overall and institutional post-booster compliance rate were significantly lower at 66.9% (P ≤ .001) and 50.0% (P ≤ .001), respectively. Compared to booster institutional compliers, institutional noncompliers lived farther from the trauma center (48 vs. 86 miles, P = .02), and though not statistically significant, these patients were generally older (34.9 vs. 40.5, P = .05). DISCUSSION: PSV booster compliance is low even with the current educational materials and recommendations. Additional approaches to improve compliance rates need to be implemented, such as sending letters to the patient and their primary care providers (PCPs), collaborating with rehab/long-term acute care centers, communicating with city and county health departments and city pharmacies, or mirroring other countries and creating a national database for asplenic patients to provide complete information.

Rectal Injury After Foreign Body Insertion: Secondary Analysis From the AAST Contemporary Management of Rectal Injuries Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion. METHODS: Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative). RESULTS: After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified.