Comparison of adult versus elderly patients with abdominal trauma: A retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND: The growing geriatric population has specific medical characteristics that should be taken into account especially in trauma setting. There is little evidence on management of abdominal trauma in the elderly and this article compares the management and outcomes of younger and older patients in order to highlight fields of improvement. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective database analysis from two European university hospitals selecting patients admitted for abdominal injury and extracted the following data: epidemiological data, mechanisms of the trauma, vital signs, blood tests, injuries, applied treatments, trauma scores and outcomes. We compared to different age group (16-64 and 65+ years old) using uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: 1181 patients were included for statistical analysis. The main mechanisms of injury in both group were traffic accidents and in the elderly group, falls were more frequent. Both had similar Abbreviated Injury Score except for the thoracic injuries, which was higher in the elderly group. We reported a death rate of 13% in the elderly group and 7% in the younger group. However, multivariable analysis did not report age as an independent predictor of mortality. The management including surgery, blood transfusion and need for intensive care were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Although elderly patients suffering abdominal trauma have an almost two fold higher mortality, their management is quite similar leading to an important point of improvement in regards to triage and lower threshold for more aggressive management and surveillance. Age itself does not seem to be a reliable predictor of mortality. Introducing a frailty score when taking care of elderly trauma patients could improve the outcomes.

Reverse-Flow Versus Perforator Propeller Lateral Arm Flap for Elbow Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The lateral arm flap (LAF) represents an attractive option for elbow reconstruction, due to low donor site morbidity and a consistent surgical anatomy. It has been described as reverse-flow and as perforator propeller flap (radial collateral artery perforator [RCAP]). We compared the 2 techniques in terms of immediate- and long-term outcomes, together with functional and aesthetic evaluation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 15 patients, 9 males and 6 females, according to the department prospectively maintained database. Ethiology of the defects and patient comorbidities were listed together with flap and clinical data (operative time, time to healing, hospital stay, etc). Functional outcomes were measured according to Quick Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand score at the time of the last follow-up. RESULTS: Seven LAF flaps were raised in a reverse-flow fashion, whereas 8 were RCAP flaps. No patients described any major elbow functional limitations, and they were generally satisfied with the aesthetic appearance. When comparing the 2 groups of reconstruction, harvest of RCAP flap resulted significantly faster and patients needed less hospitalization days (*P < 0.05). Aesthetic scores were lower where a cutaneous bridge was left intact during rotation (leading to a dogear), which was always the case in reverse-flow flap. Among complications, a partial RCAP flap necrosis occurred in a highly comorbid patient and required a skin graft coverage, whereas 4 reverse-flow flaps presented distal venous congestion which, in 1 patient, led to a secondary flap procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In our practice, elbow reconstruction using the RCAP flap required less hospital stay and operative time. Being less prone to venous congestion, in presence of sizeable perforators, it should be preferred to the reverse-flow LAF flap.