Surgical management of pancreatic necrosis: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic or peripancreatic tissue necrosis confers substantial morbidity and mortality. New modalities have created a wide variation in approaches and timing of interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. As acute care surgery evolves, its practitioners are increasingly being called upon to manage these complex patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE database using PubMed was performed. English language articles regarding pancreatic necrosis from 1980 to 2014 were included. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. Topics of investigation included operative timing, the use of adjuvant therapy and the type of operative repair. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was applied to question development, outcome prioritization, evidence quality assessments, and recommendation creation. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included and underwent full review. Increasing the time to surgical intervention had an improved outcome in each of the periods evaluated (72 hours, 12-14 days, 30 days) with a significant improvement in outcomes if surgery was delayed 30 days. The use of percutaneous and endoscopic procedures was shown to postpone surgery and potentially be definitive. The use of minimally invasive surgery for debridement and drainage has been shown to be safe and associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: Acute Care Surgeons are uniquely trained to care for those with pancreatic necrosis due their training in critical care and complex surgery with ongoing shock. In adult patients with pancreatic necrosis, we recommend that pancreatic necrosectomy be delayed until at least day 12. During the first 30 days of symptoms with infected necrotic collections, we conditionally recommend surgical debridement only if the patients fail to improve after radiologic or endoscopic drainage. Finally, even with documented infected necrosis, we recommend that patients undergo a step-up approach to surgical intervention as the preferred surgical approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.

Is low-molecular-weight heparin safe for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury? A Western Trauma Association multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant risk in trauma patients. Although low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is effective in VTE prophylaxis, its use for patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of LMWH for VTE prophylaxis in blunt intracranial injury. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study of LMWH chemoprophylaxis on patients with intracranial hemorrhage caused by blunt trauma. Patients with brain Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 3 or higher, age 18 years or older, and at least one repeated head computed tomographic scan were included. Patients with previous VTE; on preinjury anticoagulation; hospitalized for less than 48 hours; on heparin for VTE prophylaxis; or required emergent thoracic, abdominal, or vascular surgery at admission were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received LMWH and those who did not. The primary outcome was progression of intracranial hemorrhage on repeated head computed tomographic scan. RESULTS: The study included 1,215 patients, of which 220 patients (18.1%) received LMWH and 995 (81.9%) did not. Hemorrhage progression occurred in 239 of 995 control subjects and 93 of 220 LMWH patients (24% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Hemorrhage progression occurred in 32 patients after initiating LMWH (14.5%). Nine of these patients (4.1%) required neurosurgical intervention for hemorrhage progression. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving LMWH were at higher risk for hemorrhage progression. We were unable to demonstrate safety of LMWH for VTE prophylaxis in patients with brain injury. The risk of using LMWH may exceed its benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Who should we feed? Western Trauma Association multi-institutional study of enteral nutrition in the open abdomen after injury.

BACKGROUND: The open abdomen is a requisite component of a damage control operation and treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome.Enteral nutrition (EN) has proven beneficial for patients with critical injury, but its application in those with an open abdomen has not been defined. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of EN for patients with an open abdomen after trauma and the effect of EN on fascial closure rates and nosocomial infections. METHODS: We reviewed patients with an open abdomen after injury from January 2002 to January 2009 from 11 trauma centers. RESULTS: During the 7-year study period, 597 patients required an open abdomen after trauma. Most were men (77%) sustaining blunt trauma (72%), with a mean (SD) age of 38 (0.7) years, an Injury Severity Score of 31 (0.6), an abdominal injury score of 3.8(0.1), and an Abdominal Trauma Index score of 26.8 (0.6). Of the patients, 548 (92%) had an open abdomen after a damage control operation, whereas the remainder experienced an abdominal compartment syndrome. Of the 597 patients, 230 (39%)received EN initiated before the closure of the abdomen at mean (SD) day 3.6 (1.2) after injury. EN was started with an open abdomen in one quarter of the 290 patients with bowel injuries. For the 307 patients without a bowel injury, logistic regression indicated that EN is associated with higher fascial closure rates (odds ratio [OR], 5.3; p G 0.01), decreased complication rates(OR, 0.46; p = 0.02), and decreased mortality (OR, 0.30; p = 0.01). For the 290 patients who experienced a bowel injury,regression analysis showed no significant association between EN and fascial closure rate (OR, 0.6; p = 0.2), complication rate (OR, 1.7; p = 0.19), or mortality (OR, 0.79; p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: EN in the open abdomen after injury is feasible. For patients without a bowel injury, EN in the open abdomen is associated with increased fascial closure rates, decreased complication rates, and decreased mortality. EN should be initiated in these patients once resuscitation is completed. Although EN for patients with bowel injuries did not seem to affect the outcome in this study,prospective randomized controlled trials would further clarify the role of EN in this subgroup.