Traumatic abdominal wall hernias: a single-center case series of surgical management.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWHs) are a rare clinical entity that can be difficult to diagnose and manage. There is no consensus on management of TAWH due to its low incidence and complex concomitant injury patterns. We hereby present the largest single-center case series in the USA to characterize associated injury patterns, identify optimal strategies for hernia management, and determine outcomes. METHODS: Patients who presented with a TAWH from blunt trauma requiring operative management were retrospectively identified over a 14-year period. Demographic data, Injury Severity Score (ISS), associated injuries, type of repair, durability of repair, and complications were collected, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified. The average age was 31±11 years, ISS 15±9, and body mass index 33.4±7.1 kg/m2. Mechanisms included falls (13%), motor vehicle collisions (60%), motorcycle accidents (20%), and pedestrian versus motor vehicle collisions (7%). The most commonly associated injuries included colonic injuries (53%), long bone fractures (47%), pelvic fractures (40%), and small bowel injuries (33%). Nineteen hernia repairs were performed: 6 underwent primary suture repair (32%) and 13 used mesh (68%). There were four recurrences. We could not find any significant relationship between contamination and mesh use or recurrence. There was one mortality related to sepsis. DISCUSSION: TAWHs have an associated injury pattern involving fractures and abdominopelvic visceral injuries where a tailored approach is advisable. Without hollow viscous injuries and gross contamination, these hernias can be repaired safely with mesh in the acute setting. However, in patients with gross contamination or hemodynamic instability, the risk of recurrence with primary repair must be weighed against the risk of infection and prolonged surgery with mesh repair. In those cases, a delayed reconstruction in the elective setting may be optimal.

Surgical treatment for a case of coronary steal from a traumatic coronary artery-cameral fistula after blunt cardiac injury.

INTRODUCTION: Blunt cardiac trauma covers a spectrum of injuries from clinically insignificant myocardial contusions to lethal ruptures of cardiac valves and chambers. Traumatic coronary artery-cameral fistulas (TCAF) are a rare sequelae of blunt chest trauma. CASE PRESENTATION: A 53-year-old male developed a TCAF after a motor vehicle collision. He was found on admission to be in cardiogenic shock with an elevated troponin and intermittent bifascicular block. An echocardiogram revealed hypokinesis of the mid-anteroseptal myocardium with an ejection fraction of 50%. Cardiac catheterization revealed a pseudoaneurysm of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) with a fistulous connection to the right ventricle, shown to be associated with reversible anterior wall ischemia from distal LAD coronary steal phenomenon on a nuclear perfusion scan. Given the ischemic burden, he was treated with operative revascularization via a single vessel coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) using the left internal mammary artery to LAD. DISCUSSION: Early repair of TCAF can halt the progression of complications like left-to-right shunting, pulmonary hypertension, and heart failure. The two best described operative approaches to surgical closure of the fistula are either via external ligation or direct repair from within the recipient chamber, possibly with bypass grafting distal to the fistula site. Transcatheter closure and conservative management has been described for select patients with iatrogenic fistulas in recent literature. CONCLUSION: High levels of clinical suspicion are necessary for the early detection and intervention of TCAF. Surgical or transcatheter interventions including fistula ligation and CABG can prevent later complications of heart failure.

Comparison of Objective Screening and Self-Report for Alcohol and Drug Use in Traumatically Injured Patients.

Alcohol and drug use is prevalent in trauma patients. Concerns over the validity of self-reporting drug use could make non laboratory screening problematic. This study sought to validate patient self-report of substance use against objective screening to determine the reliability of self-report in trauma patients. Patients admitted to either the Trauma or Burn services who were at least 18 years old were screened for alcohol and drug use with validated screening tools. Exclusion criteria were altered mental status, non English speaking, inability to answer questions for other reasons, under police custody, or admission for < 24 hours. Results from admission Blood Alcohol Concentration BAC and Urine Drug Screen UDS were also collected and compared to self-reported use to determine its reliability. Alcohol use was queried in 128 patients, 101 of whom had a BAC drawn. Of those 101, 34 (33.7%) had a BAC > 0 mg%. Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test AUDIT screening revealed 13 (12.9%) patients who were self-reported non drinkers, none of which had a BAC > 0 mg%. Drug use was queried in 133 patients, 93 of whom had a UDS. A positive was found in 26 (28.0%) of the patients, only 12 (46.2%) of whom reported drug use in the past year. Though substance use in trauma patients is prevalent, self-report screening techniques for drugs may be inadequate at determining those patients whom could benefit from brief interventions while in the hospital. Further investigation is needed to determine the discrepancy between alcohol and drug use screening in trauma patients and more acceptable means of drug use discussion.

A clustering of injury behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is a well-known risk factor for injury. A number of other behaviors are also associated with injury risk. We hypothesized that risky drinking would be associated with other high risk behaviors, thereby delineating a need for behavioral interventions in addition to alcohol. METHODS: A consecutive sample of trauma patients was interviewed for drinking and risky behaviors including seat belt use, helmet use, and driving behaviors. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test was used to screen for risky drinking and risky behavior questions were taken from validated questionnaires. Behaviors were ranked on a Likert scale ranging from a low to a high likelihood of the behavior or assessed the frequency of behavior in the past 30 days. An Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score of 8 or more was considered risky drinking for adults age 21 to 64, and 4 or more for ages 16 to 20 and over 65. Risky and nonrisky drinkers were compared on behavior risk items. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients (mean age, 36.8 years, 72% men,) were interviewed. Risky drinkers were more likely to drive after consuming alcohol, ride with drinking drivers, tailgate, weave in and out of traffic, and make angry gestures at other drivers (all p < 0.05). Risky drinkers were less likely to wear motorcycle helmets. However, risky drinkers were no more or less likely to talk on the cell phone while driving, to use seatbelts, or use turn signals. Although number of lifetime vehicle crashes were similar, risky drinkers were more likely to have been the party at fault for the crash (mean 1.09 vs. 0.64, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Factors other than alcohol increase injury risk in problem drinkers. Injury prevention programs performing alcohol interventions should consider including behavioral interventions along with alcohol reduction strategies. New screening and intervention programs should be developed for injury behaviors that increase risk but are not alcohol related.