"It takes a village" to raise research productivity: Impact of a Trauma Interdisciplinary Group for Research (TIGR) at an urban, Level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Few interdisciplinary research groups include basic scientists, pharmacists, therapists, nutritionists, lab technicians, as well as trauma patients and families, in addition to clinicians. Increasing interprofessional diversity within scientific teams working to improve trauma care is a goal of national organizations and federal funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This paper describes the design, implementation, and outcomes of a Trauma Interdisciplinary Group for Research (TIGR) at a Level 1 trauma center as it relates to increasing research productivity, with specific examples excerpted from an on-going NIH-funded study. METHODS: We utilized a pre-test/post-test design with objectives aimed at measuring increases in research productivity following a targeted intervention. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to develop the intervention which included research skill-building activities, accomplished by adding multidisciplinary investigators to an existing NIH-funded project. The NIH project aimed to test the hypothesis that accelerated biologic aging from chronic stress increases baseline inflammation and reduces inflammatory response to trauma (projected N=150). Pre/Post-TIGR data related to participant screening, recruitment, consent, and research processes were compared. Research productivity was measured through abstracts, publications, and investigator-initiated projects. RESULTS: Research products increased from N =12 to N=42; (~ 400%). Research proposals for federal funding increased from N=0 to N=3, with success rate of 66%. Participant screenings for the NIH-funded study increased from N=40 to N=313. Consents increased from N=14 to N=70. Lab service fees were reduced from $300/participant to $5/participant. CONCLUSIONS: Adding diversity to our scientific team via TIGR was exponentially successful in 1) improving research productivity, 2) reducing research costs, and 3) increasing research products and mentoring activities that the team prior to TIGR had not entertained. The team is now well-positioned to apply for more federally funded projects and more trauma clinicians are considering research careers than before.

"It takes a village" to raise research productivity: impact of a Trauma Interdisciplinary Group for Research at an urban, Level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Few interdisciplinary research groups include basic scientists, pharmacists, therapists, nutritionists, laboratory technicians, as well as trauma patients and families, in addition to clinicians. Increasing interprofessional diversity within scientific teams working to improve trauma care is a goal of national organizations and federal funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This article describes the design, implementation, and outcomes of a Trauma Interdisciplinary Group for Research (TIGR) at a Level 1 trauma center as it relates to increasing research productivity, with specific examples excerpted from an ongoing NIH-funded study. METHODS: We used a pretest/posttest design with objectives aimed at measuring increases in research productivity following a targeted intervention. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis was used to develop the intervention, which included research skill-building activities, accomplished by adding multidisciplinary investigators to an existing NIH-funded project. The NIH project aimed to test the hypothesis that accelerated biologic aging from chronic stress increases baseline inflammation and reduces inflammatory response to trauma (projected n = 150). Pre-TIGR/post-TIGR data related to participant screening, recruitment, consent, and research processes were compared. Research productivity was measured through abstracts, publications, and investigator-initiated projects. RESULTS: Research products increased from 12 to 42 (approximately 400%). Research proposals for federal funding increased from 0 to 3, with success rate of 66%. Participant screenings for the NIH-funded study increased from 40 to 313. Consents increased from 14 to 70. Laboratory service fees were reduced from $300 per participant to $5 per participant. CONCLUSION: Adding diversity to our scientific team via TIGR was exponentially successful in (1) improving research productivity, (2) reducing research costs, and (3) increasing research products and mentoring activities that the team before TIGR had not entertained. The team is now well positioned to apply for more federally funded projects, and more trauma clinicians are considering research careers than before.

Nonoperative management of solid organ injury diminishes surgical resident operative experience: is it time for simulation training?

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management (NOM) of solid abdominal organ injury (SAOI) is increasing. Consequently, training programs are challenged to ensure essential operative trauma experience. We hypothesize that the increasing use and success of NOM for SAOI negatively impacts resident operative experience with these injuries and that curriculum-based simulation might be necessary to augment clinical experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 1198 consecutive adults admitted to a Level I trauma center over 12 y diagnosed with spleen and/or liver injury was performed. Resident case logs were reviewed to determine operative experience (Cohort A: 1996-2001 versus Cohort B: 2002-2007). RESULTS: Overall, 24% of patients underwent operation for SAOI. Fewer blunt than penetrating injuries required operation (20% versus 50%, P < 0.001). Of those managed operatively, 70% underwent a spleen procedure and 43% had a liver procedure. More patients in Cohort A received an operation compared with Cohort B (34% versus 16%, P < 0.001). Patient outcomes did not vary between cohorts. Over the study period, 55 residency graduates logged on average 27 ± 1 operative trauma cases, 3.4 ± 0.3 spleen procedures, and 2.4 ± 0.2 liver operations for trauma. Cohort A graduates recorded more operations for SAOI than Cohort B graduates (spleen 4.1 ± 0.4 versus 3.0 ± 0.2 cases, P = 0.020 and liver 3.2 ± 0.3 versus 1.8 ± 0.3 cases, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Successful NOM, especially for blunt mechanisms, diminishes traditional opportunities for residents to garner adequate operative experience with SAOI. Fewer operative occasions may necessitate an increased role for standardized, curriculum-based simulation training.

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome score and race as predictors of length of stay in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Identifying predictors of length of stay in the intensive care unit can help critical care clinicians prioritize care in patients with acute, life-threatening injuries. OBJECTIVE: To determine if systemic inflammatory response syndrome scores are predictive of length of stay in the intensive care unit in patients with acute, life-threatening injuries. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were completed on patients with acute, life-threatening injuries admitted to the intensive care unit at a level I trauma center in the southeastern United States. All 246 eligible charts from the trauma registry database from 1998 to 2007 were included. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome scores measured on admission were correlated with length of stay in the intensive care unit. Data on race, sex, age, smoking status, and injury severity score also were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression modeling was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome scores on admission to the intensive care unit were predictive of length of stay in the unit (F=15.83; P<.001), as was white race (F=9.7; P=.002), and injury severity score (F=20.23; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome scores can be measured quickly and easily at the bedside. Data support use of the score to predict length of stay in the intensive care unit.

Superior mesenteric artery syndrome in the modern trauma patient.

In 1861, von Rokitansky described obstruction of the third part of the duodenum by external compression of the duodenum by the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). In 1926, this entity was furthermore described by Wilke in his presentation of 75 patients with "chronic duodenal compression". In 1968, Mansberger used angiography to define anatomical measurements as the diagnostic criteria for this condition. Current modalities of diagnosis of SMA syndrome include esophagogastroduodenoscopy, computerized tomography angiogram, fluoroscopy, transabdominal ultrasound, and endoscopic ultrasound. The SMA syndrome has been associated with prolonged confinement in the supine position, loss of weight, loss of abdominal wall muscle tone, application of a body cast, and severe burns. With current surgical techniques allowing early ambulation, patients are able to avoid prolonged bed rest. The use of parenteral and enteral nutritional support has limited the loss of weight associated with trauma and burn patients, making this syndrome uncommon in this patient population. Recent reports of SMA syndrome focus on the association with corrective surgical procedures for scoliosis and obesity.

Management of subclavian and axillary artery injuries: spanning the range of current therapy.

Injuries of the subclavian and proximal axillary arteries are potentially devastating but account for a minority of vascular injuries presenting to trauma centers in the United States. We have reviewed our recent experience with management of subclavian and axillary artery injuries in a state-designated level 1 academic trauma center and report four cases that illustrate the typical arterial injury patterns and the entire therapeutic armamentarium in its current iteration. Subclavian and proximal axillary artery injuries present as interesting surgical problems. A high index of suspicion for vascular injuries should be maintained given the mechanism and proximity to major vasculature. Consideration should always be given to the least invasive treatment options in stable patients. Awareness of multiple therapeutic modalities and indications for each should be an integral part of every surgeon's armamentarium. As with all vascular intervention, eventual failure is the rule rather than the exception; therefore, plans for longitudinal surveillance should be made independent of the technique used to treat the injury.

Temporary abdominal closure followed by definitive abdominal wall reconstruction of the open abdomen.

BACKGROUND: Inability to close the abdominal wall after laparotomy for trauma may occur as a result of visceral edema, retroperitoneal hematoma, use of packing, and traumatic loss of tissue. Often life-saving, decompressive laparotomy and temporary abdominal closure require later restoration of anatomic continuity of the abdominal wall. METHODS: The trauma registry, open abdomen database, and patient medical records at a level 1 university-based trauma center were reviewed from January 1988 to December 2001. RESULTS: During the study period, more than 15,000 trauma patients were admitted, with 88 patients (0.6%) requiring temporary abdominal closure (TAC). Patients ages ranged from 12 to 75 years with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 28 (range 5 to 54). Forty-five patients (51%) suffered penetrating injuries, and 43 (49%) were victims of blunt trauma. Indications for TAC included visceral edema in 61 patients (70%), abdominal compartment syndrome in 10 patients (11%), traumatic tissue loss in 9 patients (10%), and wound sepsis and fascial necrosis in 8 patients (9%). Fifty-six patients (64%) underwent TAC at admission laparotomy, whereas 32 patients (36%) required TAC at reexploration. Seventy-one patients (81%) survived and 17 (19%) died. Of the survivors, 24 patients (34%) underwent same-admission direct fascial closure, and 47 patients (66%) required visceral skin grafting and readmission closure. Reconstructive procedures in the patients requiring skin graft excision included direct fascial repair (20 patients, 44%), components separation closure with or without subfascial tissue expansion (18 patients, 40%), pedicled or free-tissue flaps (4 patients, 8%), and mesh repair (4 patients, 8%). One patient refused closure. The mean follow-up was 48 months (range 6 to 144), with an overall recurrence rate of 15% (range 10% to 50%), highest in the mesh repair group. CONCLUSIONS: Silicone sheeting TAC provides a safe and reliable temporary abdominal closure allowing for later definitive reconstruction. Direct fascial repair or components separation closure with or without tissue expansion can be utilized in the majority of patients for definitive reconstruction with low recurrence rate.