Trans-mediastinal gunshot wounds: are "stable" patients really stable?

Gunshot wounds that traverse the mediastinum frequently cause serious injury to the cardiac, vascular, pulmonary, and digestive structures contained within. Most patients present with unstable vital signs signifying the need for emergency operation. An occasional patient will present with stable vital signs. Work-ups for such a patient may range from surgical exploration to radiographic and endoscopic testing to mere observation. We report our experience with diagnostic work-up of the stable patient with a transmediastinal gunshot wound. All stable patients who present to our urban level I trauma center following a transmediastinal gunshot wound undergo diagnostic work-up consisting of chest radiograph, cardiac ultrasound, angiography, esophagoscopy, barium swallow, and bronchoscopy. The work-up is dependent on the trajectory of the missile. Information on these patients is kept in a prospective database maintained by the trauma attending physicians. This database was analyzed and comparisons were made using Student's t-test and the Fisher exact c2 as appropriate. Over a 68-month period, 50 stable patients were admitted following a transmediastinal gunshot wound. All of these patients had a chest radiograph followed by one or more of the above tests. 8 patients (16%) were found to have a mediastinal injury (4 cardiac, 3 vascular, and 1 tracheo-esophageal) requiring urgent operation (group 1). The remaining 42 patients (84%) did not have a mediastinal injury (group 2). There was no difference between groups with respect to blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, pH, base deficit, or initial chest tube output. There was one death in each group, and three complications in group 2. Patients may appear stable following a transmediastinal gunshot wound, even when they have life-threatening injuries. There is no difference in vital signs, blood gas, or hemothorax to indicate which patients have serious injuries. We advocate continued aggressive work-up of these patients to avoid missing an injury with disastrous consequences.

Handsewn versus stapled anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of stapling devices in elective colon surgery has been shown to be as safe as handsewn techniques, there have been concerns about their safety in emergency trauma surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare stapled with handsewn colonic anastomosis following penetrating trauma. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study and included patients who underwent colon resection and anastomosis following penetrating trauma. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for abdominal complications and compare outcomes between stapled and handsewn repairs. RESULTS: Two hundred seven patients underwent colon resection and primary anastomosis. In 128 patients (61.8%) the anastomosis was performed with handsewing and in the remaining 79 (38.2%) with stapling devices. There were no colon-related deaths and the overall incidence of colon-related abdominal complications was 22.7% (26.6% in the stapled group and 20.3% in the handsewn group, p = 0.30). The incidence of anastomotic leak was 6.3% in the stapled group and 7.8% in the handsewn group (p = 0.69). Multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, fecal contamination, and type of antibiotic prophylaxis showed that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of complications in the stapled group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38-1.74, p = 0.63). In a second multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, hypotension, fecal contamination, Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index, and preoperative delays the adjusted OR in the stapled group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.46-2.11, p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the method of anastomosis following colon resection for penetrating trauma does not affect the incidence of abdominal complications and the choice should be surgeon's preference.