Can we refine the management of blunt liver trauma?

AIM: To describe the management of blunt liver injury and to study the potential relation between delayed complications, type of trauma mechanisms and liver lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective single center study including 116 consecutive patients admitted with blunt liver injury between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Initial CT-scan identified an active bleeding in 33 (28%) patients. AAST (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma) grade was 1 to 3 in 82 (71%) patients and equal to 5 in 15 (13%) patients. Eighty (69%) patients had NOM, with a success rate of 96%. Other abdominal organ lesions were associated to invasive initial management. A follow-up CT-scan was useful to detect hepatic and extra-hepatic complications (46 complications in 80 patients), even without clinical or biological abnormalities. Subsequent hepatic complications such as bleeding, pseudo aneurysms, biloma and biliary peritonitis developed in 15 patients and were associated with the severity of blunt liver injury according to AAST classification (3.7±1.0 vs. 3.0±1.1, P=0.010). Total biliary complications occurred in 13 patients and were significantly more frequently observed in patients with injury of central segments 1, 4 and 9 (69% vs. 36%, P=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative management is possible in most blunt liver injury with a success rate of 96%. A systematic CT-scan should be advocated during follow-up, especially when AAST grade is equal or superior to 3. Biliary complications should be suspected when lesions involve segments 1, 4 and 9.

Deviation from a preoperative surgical and anaesthetic care plan is associated with increased risk of adverse intraoperative events in major abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative coordination facilitates team communication and planning. The aim of this study was to determine how often deviation from predicted surgical conditions and a pre-established anaesthetic care plan in major abdominal surgery occurred, and whether this was associated with an increase in adverse clinical events. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, weekly preoperative interdisciplinary team meetings were conducted according to a joint care plan checklist in a tertiary care centre in France. Any discordance with preoperative predictions and deviation from the care plan were noted. A link to the incidence of predetermined adverse intraoperative events was investigated. RESULTS: Intraoperative adverse clinical events (ACEs) occurred in 15 % of all cases and were associated with postoperative complications [relative risk (RR) = 1.5; 95 % confidence interval (1.1; 2.2)]. Quality of prediction of surgical procedural items was modest, with one in five to six items not correctly predicted. Discordant surgical prediction was associated with an increased incidence of ACE. Deviation from the anaesthetic care plan occurred in around 13 %, which was more frequent when surgical prediction was inaccurate (RR > 3) and independently associated with ACE (odds ratio 6). CONCLUSION: Surgery was more difficult than expected in up to one out of five cases. In a similar proportion, disagreement between preoperative care plans and observed clinical management was independently associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events.