Prevention of all-terrain vehicle injuries: A systematic review from The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing usage since their introduction, there exist no evidence-based guidelines on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and injury prevention. While the power and speed of these vehicles has increased over time, advancements in ATV safety have been rare. METHODS: A priori questions about ATV injury pattern and the effect of helmet and safety equipment use and legislation mandating use were developed. A query of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for all-terrain vehicle injury was performed. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to perform a systematic review and create recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included. Helmet use reduced traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, studies examining whether legislation mandating helmet use reduced TBI had mixed results. When ATV safety legislation was enforced, overall injury rates and mortality decreased. However, enforcement varied widely and lack of enforcement led to decreased compliance with legislation and mixed results. There was not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of non-helmet-protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Helmet use when riding an ATV reduced the rate of TBI. ATV safety legislation, when enforced, also reduced morbidity and mortality. Compliance with laws is often low, however, possibly due to poor enforcement. We recommend helmet use when riding on an ATV to reduce TBI. We conditionally recommend implementing ATV safety legislation as a means to reduce ATV injuries, noting that enforcement must go hand in hand with enactment to ensure compliance.

Gangrenous cholecystitis: Deceiving ultrasounds, significant delay in surgical consult, and increased postoperative morbidity!

BACKGROUND: Gangrenous cholecystitis (GC) is difficult to diagnose preoperatively in the patient with suspected acute cholecystitis. We sought to characterize preoperative risk factors and post-operative complications. METHODS: Pathology reports of all patients undergoing cholecystectomy for suspected acute cholecystitis from June 2010 to January 2014 and admitted through the emergency department were examined. Patients with GC were compared with those with acute/chronic cholecystitis (AC/CC). Data collected included demographics, preoperative signs and symptoms, radiologic studies, operative details, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight cases of GC were identified and compared with 171 cases of AC/CC. Compared with AC/CC, GC patients were more likely to be older (57 years vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), of male sex (63% vs. 31%, p < 0.001), hypertensive (47% vs. 22%, p = 0.002), hyperlipidemic (29% vs. 14%, p = 0.026), and diabetic (24% vs. 8%, p = 0.006). GC patients were more likely to have a fever (29% vs. 12%, p = 0.007) and less likely to have nausea/vomiting (61% vs. 80%, p = 0.019) or an impacted gallstone on ultrasound (US) (8% vs. 26%, p = 0.017). Otherwise, there was no significant difference in clinical or US findings. Among GC patients, US findings were absent (8%, n = 3) or minimal (42%, n = 16). Median time from emergency department registration to US (3.3 hours vs. 2.8 hours, p = 0.28) was similar, but US to operation was longer (41.2 hours vs. 18.4 hours, p < 0.001), conversion to open cholecystectomy was more common (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001), and hospital stay was longer (median, 4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.0001). Delay in surgical consultation occurred in 16% of GC patients compared with 1% of AC patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Demographic features may be predictive of GC. Absent or minimal US signs occur in 50%, and delay in surgical consultation is common. Postoperative morbidity is greater for patients with GC compared with those with AC/CC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Trauma Whipple: do or don't after severe pancreaticoduodenal injuries? An analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB).

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy for trauma (PDT) is a rare procedure, reserved for severe pancreaticoduodenal injuries. Using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), our aim was to compare outcomes of PDT patients to similarly injured patients who did not undergo a PDT. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic or duodenal injuries treated with PDT (ICD-9-CM 52.7) were identified in the NTDB 2008­2010 Research Data Sets. We excluded those who underwent delayed PDT (>4 days). The PDT group (n = 39) was compared to patients with severe combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries (grade 4 or 5) who did not undergo PDT (non-PDT group, n = 38). Patients who died in the emergency department or did not undergo a laparotomy were excluded. Our primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and total ventilator days. A multivariate model was used to determine predictors of in-hospital mortality within each group and in the overall cohort. RESULTS: The non-PDT group had a significantly lower systolic blood pressure and Glasgow Coma Scale values at baseline and more severe duodenal, pancreatic, and liver injuries. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the two groups. The Injury Severity Score was the only independent predictor of mortality among PDT patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.01­1.24] and in the entire cohort (OR 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01­1.12). The operative technique did not influence any of the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-PDT, PDT did not result in improved outcomes despite a lower physiologic burden among PDT patients. More conservative procedures for high-grade injuries of the pancreaticoduodenal complex may be appropriate.

Incidental findings in trauma patients: dedicated communication with the primary care physician ensures adequate follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Frequent use of computed tomography (CT) in trauma patients results in frequent detection of non-trauma-related incidental findings (IFs). Inpatient documentation and disclosure at discharge are infrequent, even when they are potentially serious. We aimed to not only identify the incidence of IFs but also to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to trigger follow-up. METHODS: In this before-after study, all trauma patients evaluated by the trauma surgery service who underwent CT were admitted for >24 h, had at least one IF requiring follow-up, and had a primary care physician (PCP) employed in our health care system were identified. The historical control period was from January 2006 to December 2008. The intervention period was from December 2011 to September 2012. Intervention consisted of notifying the PCP via email or postal letter. The outcome of interest-the rate of follow-up-was compared between both groups. RESULTS: During the historical period, 364 (20.5 %) of 1,774 eligible trauma patients had 434 IFs requiring follow-up. During the study period, 197 (26 %) of 692 trauma patients had 212 IFs requiring follow-up. Overall, 91 % of study patients with postdischarge PCP follow-up had documented follow-up of the IF. There was a significant improvement in the rate of follow-up in the study group compared to that of the control group (51 vs. 11 %; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of IFs is common in trauma patients. A dedicated effort of communicating the presence of an IF to the patient's PCP triggered a follow-up for 91 % of patients who saw their PCP after hospital discharge.