Contemporary management of civilian penetrating cervicothoracic arterial injuries.

BACKGROUND: The management of arterial injury at the thoracic outlet has long hinged on the fundamental principles of extensile exposure and vascular anastomosis. Nonetheless, treatment options for such injuries have evolved to include both endovascular stent placement and temporary vascular shunts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our recent experience with penetrating cervicothoracic arterial injuries in light of these developments in trauma care. METHODS: Patients with penetrating injuries to the innominate, carotid, subclavian, or axillary arteries managed at a single civilian trauma center between 2000 and 2013 were categorized as the modern era (ME) cohort. The management strategies and outcomes pertaining to the ME group were compared to those of previously reported experience (PE) concerning injuries to the innominate, carotid, subclavian, or axillary arteries at the same institution from 1974 to 1988. RESULTS: Over the two eras, there were 202 patients: 110 in the ME group and 92 in the PE group. Most of the injuries in both groups were managed with primary repair (45% vs. 46%; p = 0.89). A similar proportion of injuries in each group was managed with anticoagulation alone (14% vs. 10%; p = 0.40). In the ME group, two cases were managed with temporary shunt placement, and endovascular stent placement was performed in 12 patients. Outcomes were similar between the groups (bivariate comparison): mortality (ME, 15% vs. PE, 14%; p = 0.76), amputation following subclavian or axillary artery injury (ME, 5% vs. PE, 4%; p = 0.58), and posttreatment stroke following carotid injury (ME, 2% vs. PE, 6%; p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Experience with penetrating arterial cervicothoracic injuries at a high-volume urban trauma center remained remarkably similar with respect to both anatomic distribution of injury and treatment. Conventional operative exposure and repair remain the cornerstone of treatment for most civilian cervicothoracic arterial injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level V.

Suction evacuation of hemothorax: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although tube thoracostomy is a common procedure after thoracic trauma, incomplete evacuation of fluid places the patient at risk for retained hemothorax. As little as 300 to 500 cm of blood may result in the need for an additional thoracostomy tube or, in more severe cases, lung entrapment and empyema. We hypothesized that suction evacuation of the thoracic cavity before tube placement would decrease the incidence of late complications. METHODS: Patients requiring tube thoracostomy within 96 hours of admission were prospectively identified and underwent suction evacuation of the pleural space (SEPS) before tube placement. These patients were compared to historical controls without suction evacuation. Demographics, admission vital signs, laboratory values, details of chest tube placement, and outcomes were collected on all patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were identified, consisting of 100 retrospective controls and 99 SEPS patients. There were no differences in age, sex, admission injury severity score or chest abbreviated injury score, admission laboratory values or vital signs, or hospital length of stay. Mean (SD) volume of hemothorax in SEPS patients was 220 (297) cm; with only 48% having a volume greater than 100 cm at the time of tube placement. Three patients developed empyema, and 19 demonstrated retained blood; there was no difference between SEPS and control patients. Suction evacuation of the pleural space was significantly protective against recurrent pneumothorax after chest tube removal (odds ratio, 0.332; 95% confidence interval, 0.148-0.745). CONCLUSION: Preemptive suction evacuation of the thoracic cavity did not have a significant impact on subsequent development of retained hemothorax or empyema. Suction evacuation of the pleural space significantly decreased incidence of recurrent pneumothorax after thoracostomy removal. Although the mechanism is unclear, such a benefit may make this simple procedure worthwhile. A larger sample size is required for validation and to determine if preemptive thoracic evacuation has a clinical benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.