Exploring the role of endovascular interventions in blunt carotid and vertebral artery trauma.

BACKGROUND: The role of endovascular interventions (EI) for blunt carotid and vertebral artery injuries (BCI and BVI) is poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of EI compared with antithrombotic therapy (AT) to inform future prospective study. METHODS: Retrospective review (2017-2022) of records at a Level I trauma center to determine injury, treatment, and outcome information. Primary outcome was stroke. RESULTS: 96 patients suffered 106 injuries (74 BVI, 32 BCI). 12 patients underwent 13 EI- 4 therapeutic, 9 prophylactic. Stroke occurred in 12 patients- 6 who had EI. In grade IV BVI, stroke rates are low with both EI and AT. Thrombectomy after stroke improved neurologic function in 4 (100%) of 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most strokes occur prior to preventive therapy. Neither AT nor EI is 100% effective in preventing stroke. Thrombectomy may improve neurologic outcomes after stroke. Prospective multicenter study is imperative.

Pain management on a trauma service: a crisis reveals opportunities.

Objectives: The opioid crisis has forced an examination of opioid prescribing and usage patterns. Multimodal pain management and limited, procedure-specific prescribing guidelines have been proposed in general surgery but are less well studied in trauma, where multisystem injuries and multispecialty caregivers are the norm. We hypothesized that opioid requirements would differ by primary type of injury and by age, and we sought to identify factors affecting opioid prescribing at discharge (DC). Methods: Retrospective analysis of pain management at a level II trauma center for January-November 2018. Consecutive patients with exploratory laparotomy (LAP); 3 or more rib fractures (fxs) (RIB); or pelvic (PEL), femoral (FEM), or tibial (TIB) fxs were included, and assigned to cohorts based on the predominant injury. Patients who died or had head Abbreviated Injury Scale >2 and Glasgow Coma Scale <15 were excluded. All pain medications were recorded daily; doses were converted to oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). The primary outcomes of interest were OMEs administered over the final 72 hours of hospitalization (OME72) and prescribed at DC (OMEDC). Multimodal pain therapy defined as 3 or more drugs used. Categorical variables and continuous variables were analyzed with appropriate statistical analyses. Results: 208 patients were included: 17 LAP, 106 RIB, 31 PEL, 26 FEM, and 28 TIB. 74% were male and 8% were using opiates prior to admission. Injury cohorts varied by age but not Injury Severity Score (ISS) or length of stay (LOS). 64% of patients received multimodal pain therapy. There was an overall difference in OME72 between the five injury groups (p<0.0001) and OME72 was lower for RIB compared with all other cohorts. Compared with younger (age <65) patients, older (≥65 years) patients had similar ISS and LOS, but lower OME72 (45 vs 135*) and OMEDC. Median OME72 differed significantly between older and younger patients with PEL (p=0.02) and RIB (p=0.01) injuries. No relationship existed between OMEDC across injury groups, by sex or injury severity. Patients were discharged almost exclusively by trauma service advanced practice clinicians (APCs). There was no difference among APCs in number of pills or OMEs prescribed. 81% of patients received opioids at DC, of whom 69% were prescribed an opioid/acetaminophen combination drug; and only 13% were prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 19% acetaminophen, and 31% gabapentin. Conclusions: Opioid usage varied among patients with different injury types. Opioid DC prescribing appears rote and does not correlate with actual opioid usage during the 72 hours prior to DC. Paradoxically, OMEDC tends to be higher among females, patients with ISS <16, and those with rib fxs, despite a tendency toward lower OME72 usage among these groups. There was apparent underutilization of non-opioid agents. These findings highlight opportunities for improvement and further study. Level of evidence: IV.

Trauma resource pit stop: increasing efficiency in the evaluation of lower severity trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Overtriage of trauma patients is unavoidable and requires effective use of hospital resources. A 'pit stop' (PS) was added to our lowest tier trauma resource (TR) triage protocol where the patient stops in the trauma bay for immediate evaluation by the emergency department (ED) physician and trauma nursing. We hypothesized this would allow for faster diagnostic testing and disposition while decreasing cost. METHODS: We performed a before/after retrospective comparison after PS implementation. Patients not meeting trauma activation (TA) criteria but requiring trauma center evaluation were assigned as a TR for an expedited PS evaluation. A board-certified ED physician and trauma/ED nurse performed an immediate assessment in the trauma bay followed by performance of diagnostic studies. Trauma surgeons were readily available in case of upgrade to TA. We compared patient demographics, Injury Severity Score, time to physician evaluation, time to CT scan, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Comparisons were made using 95% CI for variance and SD and unpaired t-tests for two-tailed p values, with statistical difference, p<0.05. RESULTS: There were 994 TAs and 474 TRs in the first 9 months after implementation. TR's preanalysis versus postanalysis of the TR group shows similar mean door to physician evaluation times (6.9 vs. 8.6 minutes, p=0.1084). Mean door to CT time significantly decreased (67.7 vs. 50 minutes, p<0.001). 346 (73%) TR patients were discharged from ED; 2 (0.4%) were upgraded on arrival. When admitted, TR patients were older (61.4 vs. 47.2 years, p<0.0001) and more often involved in a same-level fall (59.5% vs. 20.1%, p<0.0001). Undertriage was calculated using the Cribari matrix at 3.2%. DISCUSSION: PS implementation allowed for faster door to CT time for trauma patients not meeting activation criteria without mobilizing trauma team resources. This approach is safe, feasible, and simultaneously decreases hospital cost while improving allocation of trauma team resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic/decision therapeutic/care management study.

Trauma resource designation: an innovative approach to improving trauma system overtriage.

BACKGROUND: Effective triage of injured patients is often a balancing act for trauma systems. As healthcare reimbursements continue to decline,1 innovative programs to effectively use hospital resources are essential in maintaining a viable trauma system. The objective of this pilot intervention was to evaluate a new triage model using 'trauma resource' (TR) as a new category in our existing Tiered Trauma Team Activation (TA) approach with hopes of decreasing charges without adversely affecting patient outcome. METHODS: Patients at one Level II Trauma Center (TC) over seven months were studied. Patients not meeting American College of Surgeons criteria for TA were assigned as TR and transported to a designated TC for expedited emergency department (ED) evaluation. Such patients were immediately assessed by a trauma nurse, ED nurse, and board-certified ED physician. Diagnostic studies were ordered, and the trauma surgeon (TS) was consulted as needed. Demographics, injury mechanism, time to physician evaluation, time to CT scan, time to disposition, hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-two of the 318 TR patients were admitted by the TS and were similar to TA patients (N=684) with regard to gender, mean Injury Severity Score, mean LOS and in-hospital mortality, but were older (60.4 vs 47.2 years, p<0.0001) and often involved in a fall injury (52% vs 35%, p=0.0170). TR patients had increased door to physician evaluation times (11.5 vs 0.4 minutes, p<0.0001) and increased door to CT times (76.2 vs 25.9 minutes, p<0.0001). Of the 313 TR patients, 52 incurred charges totaling US$253 708 compared with US$1 041 612 if patients had been classified as TA. CONCLUSIONS: Designating patients as TR prehospital with expedited evaluation by an ED physician and early TS consultation resulted in reduced use of resources and lower hospital charges without increase in LOS, time to disposition or in-hospital mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Head injuries in hospital-admitted adolescents and adults with skateboard-related trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To provide new information on properties of skateboarders who were hospital admitted with head injuries with details of the injuries including region of head impact. METHODS: Hospital records of patients aged 15 and older with a skateboard injury admitted to one Level II Trauma Centre during a 10-year period were reviewed. Data on demographic, exposure, severity, diagnostic and clinical factors for patients with head injury (HI) and without HI (N-HI) were compared analytically. RESULTS: While there were no differences for patients with HI and N-HI by age, gender, mechanism of injury or alcohol use, patients with HI were more severely injured. Although significantly more head impacts occurred to the occipital region of the head, haematomas and/or contusions were much more likely to occur in the frontal region of the brain. Acute neurosurgical intervention was needed in 14% of HI skateboarders. CONCLUSION: Skateboarding is not an innocuous recreational activity, with head injury present in 75% of patients who were hospital-admitted. Pre-hospital treatment protocols should be aware of this growing injured population. Falls while on a skateboard lead to impacts to the back of head with a contra-coup brain injury resulting in severe and sometimes fatal outcomes. The very low prevalence of helmet use among skateboarders with head injuries indicates that greater efforts should be directed toward incentives for their use.

Epidemiological and clinical features of an older high-risk population of skateboarders.

BACKGROUND: Skateboard injuries have been described in the media and scientific journals as a problem prevalent among children and adolescents. Skateboarding popularity has continued to grow since the 1970s with ridership increasing to include all age groups. Recently, surgeons at one trauma centre at an urban hospital noted an increase in the number of older skateboarders with life-threatening injuries. We hypothesise that the clinical and epidemiological features of skateboard-related injuries from one trauma centre (TC) will be different from injured skateboarders identified in the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). We also sought to identify factors related to poor outcomes in the TC and NTDB patient groups. METHODS: Two injured skateboarder patient groups were identified and compared using proportional morbidity odds ratios (PMORs) and multivariable methods to estimate differences among factors common to both groups of patients. Clinical and demographic features were evaluated for hospital admitted patients injured whilst riding a skateboard. Chi-square tests, PMORs and logistic regression were used to determine outcome differences between patients in both groups. RESULTS: Patients in the TC group were on average older, with higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS), more head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention, longer ICU and hospital stays, and injured more frequently on local streets than patients in the NTDB series. Poor outcomes in the TC group were related to moderate or severe head injuries and presence of a head/face injury. For NTDB patients, a GCS of <13, a head/face injury and an ISS of 25+ were related to poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: From our Trauma Centre we describe an older injured skateboarding population, clinically and epidemiologically different from injured patients identified in the NTDB as well as those described in the literature. The greater severity of injury, including traumatic brain injury, has direct implications for preventive and educational measures and the planning of emergency surgical response.

Immunologic function after splenic embolization, is there a difference?

BACKGROUND: To define the immunologic status of patients undergoing splenic embolization (SE) after traumatic injury. This information may lead to the development of immunization protocols based on scientific data. METHODS: Patients with traumatic splenic injury, treated at one level II Trauma Center were eligible for study. SE patients were compared with splenectomy (SP) patients and controls (C = blunt abdominal trauma patients with negative abdominal computed tomography scans). Clinical examination, medical survey, blood sampling, and nuclear medicine spleen scans were performed. IgM, IgG, C3 complement, complement factor B, helper T cells (CD3, CD4), suppressor T-cells (CD8), complete blood counts, and HIV status were tested. Radionuclide spleen scans were analyzed for total spleen volume, splenic defects, abnormal radionuclide uptake, and ectopic sites of tracer uptake. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, or injury severity score among groups. Follow-up time was comparable (SP = 2.67 years; SE = 2.88 years). There were no significant differences in all studies measured except for higher CD8 levels in the SP group (730.1 vs. SE 452.1 vs. C 480.6; p = 0.002), although all values were within the normal range. CD3 levels showed a trend of being higher in the SP group (1709.3 vs. SE 1397.2 vs. C 1371.9), but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that the immunologic profile of embolized patients is similar to controls. This supports the safe use of SE in managing the traumatically injured spleen. Larger studies examining the immune function after SE will be needed to make definitive vaccination recommendations.