Hybrid emergency room system improves timeliness of angioembolization for pelvic fracture.

BACKGROUND: Timely angioembolization (AE) is known to improve outcomes of patients with hemorrhage resulting from pelvic fracture. The hybrid emergency room system (HERS) is a novel trauma resuscitation room equipped with a computed tomography scanner, fluoroscopy equipment, and an operating room setup. We hypothesized that the HERS would improve the timeliness of AE for pelvic fracture. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of patients who underwent AE for pelvic fracture at our institution from April 2015 to December 2018 was conducted. Patients' demographics, location of AE, Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, probability of survival by the trauma and injury severity score (TRISS Ps) method, presence of interventional radiologists (IRs) upon patient arrival, time from arrival to AE, and in-hospital mortality were analyzed. These data were compared between patients who underwent AE in the HERS (HERS group) and in the regular angio suite (non-HERS group). RESULTS: Ninety-six patients met the inclusion criteria. The HERS group comprised 24 patients, and the non-HERS group, 72 patients. Interventional radiologists were more frequently present upon patient arrival in the HERS than non-HERS group (IRs, 79% vs. 22%, p < 0.01). The time from arrival to AE was shorter in the HERS than non-HERS group (median [range], 46 [5-75] minutes vs. 103 [2-690] minutes, p < 0.01). There were no differences in the rate of in-hospital mortality (13% vs. 15%, p = 0.52) between the two groups. Survivors in the HERS group had a lower probability of survival by the trauma and injury severity score (median [range], 61% [1%-98%] vs. 93% [1%-99%], p < 0.01) than survivors in the non-HERS group. CONCLUSION: The HERS improved the timeliness of AE for pelvic fracture. More severely injured patients were able to survive in the HERS. The new team building involving the addition of IRs to the traditional trauma resuscitation team will enhance the benefit of the HERS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.

Emergency trauma laparotomy and/or thoracotomy in the emergency department: risks and benefits.

BACKGROUND: It is not mandatory for Japanese trauma centers to have an operating room (OR) and OR team available 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Therefore, emergency laparotomy/thoracotomy is performed in the emergency department (ED). The present study was conducted to assess the safety of this practice. METHODS: The data were reviewed from 88 patients who underwent emergency trauma laparotomy and/or thoracotomy performed by our acute care surgery group during the period from April 2013 to December 2017. Operation was performed in the ED for 43 of 88 patients (51%, ED group), and in the OR for 45 of 88 patients (49%, OR group). The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Compared with the OR group, the ED group had a higher Injury Severity Score (30±15 vs. 13±10, p<0.01), greater incidence of blunt trauma (74% (32/43) vs. 36% (16/45), p<0.01), larger volume of red blood cell transfusion (18±18 units vs. 5±10 units, p<0.01), higher incidence of new-onset shock after sedation among patients who received sedation in the ED (59% (17/29) vs. 25% (6/24), p<0.01), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (49% (21/43) vs. 0, p<0.01). All five patients who underwent laparotomy followed by thoracotomy died in the ED; none of these patients underwent preoperative placement of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). Of the 21 patients in the ED group who died, 17 (81%) died immediately postoperatively; furthermore, 12 of the 22 patients who survived (55%) were not in shock prior to operation. DISCUSSION: Emergency trauma laparotomy and/or thoracotomy outcomes were related to injury severity. The resources for trauma operations in the ED seemed suboptimal. The outcome of trauma operations may be improved by reviewing the protocols for anesthetic care, and by the usage of REBOA rather than aortic cross-clamping. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Performing Trauma Surgery in the Emergency Room Impacts the Timeliness of Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Our institution has emergency rooms (ERs) with an operating room (OR) setup, which enables surgeons to perform thoracotomy and/or laparotomy for trauma patients without transferring patients to the OR. We hypothesized that the ERs with an OR setup improve the timeliness of surgery for trauma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were reviewed from trauma patients who underwent emergency surgeries performed by our acute care surgery group from April 2013 to June 2017. Patients' demographics, diagnoses, location of the operation (ER versus regular OR), type of operation, time from admission to operation, and perioperative outcomes including in-hospital mortality were analyzed. These data were compared between patients who underwent surgery in the ER versus the OR. RESULTS: There were 105 trauma patients who met the inclusion criteria. Of these 105 patients, 50 underwent surgery in the ER (47.6%, ER group), whereas 55 underwent surgery in the OR (52.4%, OR group). Compared with the OR group, the ER group had a shorter time from admission to operation (median 43 min [range 3-105 min] versus 109 min [range 15-1340 min], P < 0.04), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (38.2% versus 0%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: An ER with an OR setup can enable surgery to be started sooner. Compared with the OR group, patients who underwent surgery performed in the ER tended to be in a more serious condition, and were thus likely to have a higher mortality rate. Further study is warranted to determine which patients would benefit best from this approach.