Scanning the aged to minimize missed injury: An EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high incidence of blunt trauma in older adults, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance for computed tomography (CT) imaging in this population. We aimed to identify an algorithm to guide use of a Pan-Scan (Head/C-spine/Torso) or a Selective Scan (Head/C-spine ± Torso). We hypothesized that a patient's initial history and exam could be used to guide imaging. METHODS: We prospectively studied blunt trauma patients aged 65+ at 18 Level I/II trauma centers. Patients presenting >24 h after injury or who died upon arrival were excluded. We collected history and physical elements and final injury diagnoses. Injury diagnoses were categorized into CT body regions of Head/C-spine or Torso (chest, abdomen/pelvis, and T/L spine). Using machine learning and regression modeling as well as a priori clinical algorithms based, we tested various decision rules against our dataset. Our priority was to identify a simple rule which could be applied at the bedside, maximizing sensitivity (Sens) and negative predictive value (NPV) to minimize missed injuries. RESULTS: We enrolled 5,498 patients with 3,082 injuries. Nearly half (47.1%, n = 2,587) had an injury within the defined CT body regions. No rule to guide a Pan-Scan could be identified with suitable Sens/NPV for clinical use. A clinical algorithm to identify patients for Pan-Scan, using a combination of physical exam findings and specific high-risk criteria, was identified and had a Sens of 0.94 and NPV of 0.86 This rule would have identified injuries in all but 90 patients (1.6%) and would theoretically spare 11.9% (655) of blunt trauma patients a torso CT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings advocate for Head/Cspine CT in all geriatric patients with the addition of torso CT in the setting of positive clinical findings and high-risk criteria. Prospective validation of this rule could lead to streamlined diagnostic care of this growing trauma population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, Diagnostic Tests or Criteria.

High-grade liver injuries with contrast extravasation managed initially with interventional radiology versus observation: A secondary analysis of a WTA multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â€‹= â€‹0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â€‹> â€‹0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients.

Placement of Intracranial Pressure Monitors by Non-neurosurgeons: A Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Some research suggests that physicians who are not neurosurgeons can safely place intracranial pressure (ICP) monitors. The purpose of this study was to compare intracranial pressure monitor placement complications between neurosurgeons, trauma physicians, and general surgery residents. We hypothesized that with appropriate training, general residents can safely place ICP monitors. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective chart review of all trauma patients that required ICP monitor placement between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021, was conducted. Comparisons were made between treatment groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 194 patients required ICP monitor placement. General surgery residents placed 94.3% of ICP monitors, 3.6% were placed by attending trauma physicians, and 2.1% by neurosurgeons. No ICP monitors were placed by attending trauma physicians or neurosurgeons between 2015 and 2018. Overall, minor complications during ICP monitor placement included device malfunction (2.7%) and inaccurate readings (.5%). There were no major complications during ICP monitor placement. Post-ICP monitor placement complications included one patient who experienced a central nervous system infection (.5%) and three patients who had mechanical problems (1.5%). No complications occurred among the neurosurgeon or attending trauma physician treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Most intracranial pressure monitors in our study sample were safely placed by surgical residents. Based on our study findings and considering the shortage and downtrend of neurosurgery specialists, ICP bolt placement needs to become a core clinical skill in surgical resident programs across the United States.