Immediate Operative Trauma Assessment Score: A Simple and Reliable Predictor of Mortality in Trauma Patients Undergoing Urgent/Emergent Surgery.

Objective: Many current trauma mortality prediction tools are either too intricate or rely on data not readily available during a trauma patient's initial evaluation. Moreover, none are tailored to those necessitating urgent or emergent surgery. Our objective was to design a practical, user-friendly scoring tool using immediately available variables, and then compare its efficacy to the widely-known Revised Trauma Score (RTS). Methods: The adult 2017-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was queried to identify patients ≥18 years old undergoing any urgent/emergent operation (direct from Emergency Department to operating room). Patients were divided into derivation and validation groups. A three-step methodology was used. First, multiple logistic regression models were created to determine risk of death using only variables available upon arrival. Second, the weighted average and relative impact of each independent predictor was used to derive an easily calculated Immediate Operative Trauma Assessment Score (IOTAS). We then validated IOTAS using AUROC and compared it to RTS. Results: From 249 208 patients in the derivation-set, 14 635 (5.9%) died. Age ≥65, Glasgow Coma Scale score <9, hypotension (SBP <90 mmHg), and tachycardia (>120/min) on arrival were identified as independent predictors for mortality. Using these, the IOTAS was structured, offering scores between 0-8. The AUROC for this was .88. A clear escalation in mortality was observed across scores: from 4.4% at score 1 to 60.5% at score 8. For the validation set (250 182 patients; mortality rate 5.8%), the AUROC remained consistent at .87, surpassing RTS's AUROC of .83. Conclusion: IOTAS is a novel, accurate, and now validated tool that is intuitive and efficient in predicting mortality for trauma patients requiring urgent or emergent surgeries. It outperforms RTS, and thereby may help guide clinicians when determining the best course of action in patient management as well as counseling patients and their families.

Artificial intelligence evaluation of focused assessment with sonography in trauma.

BACKGROUND: The focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) is a widely used imaging modality to identify the location of life-threatening hemorrhage in a hemodynamically unstable trauma patient. This study evaluates the role of artificial intelligence in interpretation of the FAST examination abdominal views, as it pertains to adequacy of the view and accuracy of fluid survey positivity. METHODS: Focused assessment with sonography for trauma examination images from 2015 to 2022, from trauma activations, were acquired from a quaternary care level 1 trauma center with more than 3,500 adult trauma evaluations, annually. Images pertaining to the right upper quadrant and left upper quadrant views were obtained and read by a surgeon or radiologist. Positivity was defined as fluid present in the hepatorenal or splenorenal fossa, while adequacy was defined by the presence of both the liver and kidney or the spleen and kidney for the right upper quadrant or left upper quadrant views, respectively. Four convolutional neural network architecture models (DenseNet121, InceptionV3, ResNet50, Vgg11bn) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 6,608 images, representing 109 cases were included for analysis within the "adequate" and "positive" data sets. The models relayed 88.7% accuracy, 83.3% sensitivity, and 93.6% specificity for the adequate test cohort, while the positive cohort conferred 98.0% accuracy, 89.6% sensitivity, and 100.0% specificity against similar models. Augmentation improved the accuracy and sensitivity of the positive models to 95.1% accurate and 94.0% sensitive. DenseNet121 demonstrated the best accuracy across tasks. CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence can detect positivity and adequacy of FAST examinations with 94% and 97% accuracy, aiding in the standardization of care delivery with minimal expert clinician input. Artificial intelligence is a feasible modality to improve patient care imaging interpretation accuracy and should be pursued as a point-of-care clinical decision-making tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

Urgent Breast-Related Consults Seen by Acute Care Surgery at a Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Classically, urgent breast consults are seen by Breast Surgery or Surgical Oncology (BS/SO). At our safety net hospital, Acute Care Surgery (ACS) performs all urgent surgical consultations, including initial assessment of breast consults with coordinated BS/SO follow-up. The objective was to determine safety of ACS initial assessment of acute breast pathology. METHODS: All urgent breast-related consultations were included (2016-2019). Demographics, consult indications, and investigations/interventions were captured. Outcomes were compared between patients assessed by ACS versus both ACS and BS/SO at presentation. RESULTS: 234 patients met study criteria, with median age 39 years. Patients were primarily Hispanic (82%) women (96%). Most were not seen by BS/SO at presentation (69%), although BS/SO assessment was more frequent among patients ultimately diagnosed with cancer (8% vs 1%, P = .012). No patient had delay >90 days to core biopsy from presentation. Outcomes including time to cancer diagnosis (14 vs 8 days, P = .143) and outpatient BS/SO assessment (16 vs 13 days, P = .528); loss to follow-up (25% vs 21%, P = .414); and ED recidivism (24% vs 18%, P = .274) were comparable between patients seen by ACS versus ACS/BS/SO at index presentation. CONCLUSION: Urgent breast consults at our safety net hospital typically underwent initial assessment by ACS with outpatient evaluation by BS/SO. Time to follow-up and cancer diagnosis, loss to follow-up, and ED recidivism were similar after index presentation assessment by ACS versus ACS and BS/SO. In a resource-limited environment, urgent breast consults can be safely managed in the acute setting by ACS with coordinated outpatient BS/SO follow-up.

Association Between Trimester and Outcomes after Cholecystectomy During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Conventional philosophy promotes the second trimester as the ideal time during pregnancy for cholecystectomy. However, literature supporting this belief is sparse. The purpose of this study is to examine the association of trimester and clinical outcomes after cholecystectomy during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for pregnant women who underwent cholecystectomy between October 2015 and December 2017. Patients were categorized by trimester. Multivariable logistic and continuous outcome regression models were used to evaluate the association of trimester and outcomes, including maternal and fetal complications, length of stay, and hospital charges. The primary outcome was any complication-a composite of specific clinical complications, each of which were designated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 819 pregnant women satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 217 (26.5%) were in the first trimester, 381 (47.5%) were in the second trimester, and 221 (27.0%) were in the third trimester. Median age was 27 years (interquartile range: 23-31 years). Compared with the second trimester, cholecystectomy during the first trimester was not associated with higher rates of complications (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-1.63, p = 0.68). However, cholecystectomy during the third trimester was associated with a higher rate of preterm delivery (AOR 7.20, 95% CI 3.09-16.77, p < 0.001) and overall maternal and fetal complications (AOR 2.78, 95% CI 1.71-4.53, p < 0.001). Compared with the second trimester, the third trimester was associated with 21.3% higher total hospital charges (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that cholecystectomy can be performed in the first trimester without significantly increased risk of maternal and fetal complications, compared to the second trimester. In contrast, cholecystectomy during pregnancy should not be delayed until the third trimester.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) stay-at-home order's unequal effects on trauma volume by insurance status in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 in the United States led to a variety of mandates intended to decrease population movement and "flatten the curve." However, there is evidence some are not able to stay-at-home due to certain disadvantages, thus remaining exposed to both coronavirus disease 2019 and trauma. We therefore sought to identify any unequal effects of the California stay-at-home orders between races and insurance statuses in a multicenter study utilizing trauma volume data. METHODS: A posthoc multicenter retrospective analysis of trauma patients presenting to 11 centers in Southern California between the dates of January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020, and January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, was performed. The number of trauma patients of each race/insurance status was tabulated per day. We then calculated the changes in trauma volume related to stay-at-home orders for each race/insurance status and compared the magnitude of these changes using statistical resampling. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, there was a 40.1% drop in total trauma volume, which occurred 20 days after stay-at-home orders. During stay-at-home orders, the average daily trauma volume of patients with Medicaid increased by 13.7 ± 5.3%, whereas the volume of those with Medicare, private insurance, and no insurance decreased. The average daily trauma volume decreased for White, Black, Asian, and Latino patients with the volume of Black and Latino patients dropping to a similar degree compared to White patients. CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter study demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had a paradoxical increase in trauma volume during stay-at-home orders, suggesting that the most impoverished groups remain disproportionately exposed to trauma during a pandemic, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

Practical assessment of different saw types for field amputation: A cadaver-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Field amputation can be life-saving for entrapped patients requiring surgical extrication. Under these austere conditions, the procedure must be performed as rapidly as possible with limited equipment, often in a confined space, while minimizing provider risk. The aim of this study was to determine the ideal saw, and optimal approach, through bone or joint, for a field amputation. METHODS: This was a prospective cadaver-based study. Four saws (Gigli, manual pruning, electric oscillating and electric reciprocating) were tested in human cadavers. Each saw was used to transect four separate long bones (humerus, ulna/radius, femur and tibia/fibula), previously exposed at a standardized location. The time required for each saw to cut through the bone, the number of attempts required to seat the saw when transecting the bone, slippage, quality of proximal bone cut and extent of body fluid splatter as well as the physical space required by each device during the amputation were recorded. Additionally, the most effective saw in the through bone assessment was compared to limb amputation using scalpel and scissors for a through joint amputation at the elbow, wrist, knee and ankle. Univariate analysis was used to compare the outcomes between the different saws. RESULTS: The fastest saw for the through bone amputation was the reciprocating followed by oscillating (2.1 [1.4-3.7] seconds vs 3.0 [1.6-4.9] seconds). The manual pruning (58.8 [25-121] seconds) was the slowest (p = 0.007). Overall, the oscillating saw was superior or equivalent to the other devices in number of attempts (1), slippage (0), quality of bone cut (100% good) and physical space requirements (4500 cm3), and was the second fastest. In comparison, a through joint amputation (125.0 [50-147] seconds for scalpel and scissor; 125.5 [86-217] seconds for the oscillating saw) was significantly slower than through bone with the Gigli (p = 0.029), the oscillating (p = 0.029) and the reciprocal saw (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: The speed, precision, safety, space required, as well as the adjustable blade of the oscillating saw make it ideal for a field amputation. A Gigli saw is an excellent backup for when electrical tools cannot be used. Through bone amputation is faster than a through joint amputation.

Youth and Young Adult Victims of Interpersonal Violence at LA County + USC Medical Center: A Review of Epidemiology and Recidivism.

Youth and young adult interpersonal violence (IPV) is a unique clinical challenge which merits study. This study defined the demographics and clinical outcomes of youth and young adult victims of IPV presenting to our hospital while examining violent injury recidivism. We reviewed patients aged 10 to 30 years admitted to our trauma bay as a victim of gunshot wound (GSW), stabbing wound, or blunt assault from 1998 to 2015 (n = 12,549). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to compare patient mortality across demographic characteristics, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine risk factors for recidivism. Male (92%) and Hispanic patients (75%) constituted the majority of admissions. We observed differences in the mortality rate by gender (9% in males vs 5% in females, P < 0.001), race/ethnicity (5% non-Hispanic white vs 9% Hispanic, P = 0.001), insurance status (3% insured vs 10% uninsured, P < 0.001), and mechanism of injury (13% GSW, 2% stabbing wound, and 0.3% blunt assault, P < 0.001). Male gender, younger age, GSW, and amphetamine placed patients at higher risk for IPV recidivism (P < 0.05). This study demonstrates the need to better understand how demographics and economics are associated with youth and young adult IPV. In addition, future IPV prevention and intervention initiatives can be tailored to suit the unique needs of our population.

Current Burden of Gunshot Wound Injuries at Two Los Angeles County Level I Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND: Gunshot wound (GSW) injuries present a unique surgical challenge. This study explored the financial and clinical burdens of GSW patients across 2 Los Angeles County Level I trauma centers over the last 12 years, and compared them with other forms of interpersonal injury (OIPI). STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of patients presenting as those with GSW and OIPI (defined as combined stab wound or blunt assault), between January 1, 2006 and March 30, 2018, at LAC+USC Medical Center (LAC+USC) and Harbor UCLA Medical Center (HUCLA). Demographic and clinical variables were assessed for GSW patients and compared with victims of OIPI. RESULTS: There were 17,871 patients who met inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in mortality for patients with GSW vs OIPI (11% vs 2%, p < 0.001). The odds ratio for GSW patients requiring operation was twice as high as those suffering OIPI (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.2). The odds ratio for GSW patients requiring ICU admission was 20% higher than that for OIPI patients (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.36). Gunshot wound patients experienced a longer median length of stay vs OIPI patients (3 days vs 2 days, p < 0.001). The median hospital charge per admission for GSW was twice that of OIPI (GSW $12,612 vs OIPI $6,195; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with OIPI, GSW patients arrived more severely injured and required more operations, more ICU admissions, and longer hospital stays. Patients with GSW incurred significantly higher hospital charges and had a significantly higher mortality rate. Gunshot wound injury is a unique public health concern requiring comprehensive, nation-wide, contemporary study.

Calculated Decisions: Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma (FAST)

Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) predicts the presence of pericardial or intra-abdominal injury after penetrating or blunt trauma.

The combined utility of extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma and chest x-ray in blunt thoracic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Portable chest x-ray (CXR) and extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (EFAST) screen patients for thoracic injury in the trauma bay. It is unclear if one test alone is sufficient, if both are required, or if the two investigations are complementary. Study objectives were to define the combined diagnostic yield of EFAST and CXR among stable blunt thoracic trauma patients and to determine if a normal EFAST and CXR might obviate the need for computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest. METHODS: All blunt trauma patients 15 years or older presenting to LAC+USC Medical Center in 2016 were screened. Only patients who underwent CT thorax were included. Patients were excluded if they presented more than 24 hours after injury, were transferred, or if they did not undergo EFAST and CXR. Demographics, physical examination (PEx) of the thorax, injury data, investigations, procedures, and outcomes were collected. The EFAST, CXR, and PEx findings were compared to the gold standard CT thorax to calculate the diagnostic yield of each investigation and combinations thereof in the assessment for clinically significant thoracic injury. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred eleven patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle collision (n = 385, 29%) and auto versus pedestrian trauma (n = 379, 29%). Mean Injury Severity Score was 11 (1-75), with mean Abbreviated Injury Scale chest score of 1.6 (1-6). The sensitivities of EFAST, CXR, and PEx, either individually or in combination, were less than 0.73 in the detection of clinically significant thoracic injury. The most common missed clinically significant injuries were sternal fractures, scapular fractures, clavicular fractures, and pneumothoraces. Motorcycle collisions and auto versus pedestrian traumas resulted in the highest rates of missed injury. CONCLUSION: Even in conjunction with the physical examination, the sensitivity of EFAST+CXR in the detection of clinically significant thoracic injury is low. Therefore, if clinical suspicion for injury exists after blunt thoracic trauma, a normal EFAST+CXR is insufficient to exclude injury and CT scan of the chest should be performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic tests/criteria, level III.

Defining the gastroesophageal junction in trauma: Epidemiology and management of a challenging injury.

BACKGROUND: Injuries to the gastroesophageal (GE) junction are infrequently encountered because of the high mortality of associated injuries. Consequently, there is a paucity of literature on the patient demographics and treatment options. The aim of this study was to examine the epidemiology, surgical management, and outcomes of these rare injuries. METHODS: Patients presenting to LAC + USC Medical Center (January 2008 to August 2016) with traumatic esophageal or gastric injury (DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev.-Clinical Modification and 10th Rev. codes) were extracted from the trauma registry. Patient charts were reviewed, and all patients who sustained an injury to the GE junction were enrolled. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 238 patients who sustained an injury to the esophagus or stomach during the study period, 28 (12%) were found to have a GE junction injury. Mean age was 26 years (range, 14-57 years), 89% male. Mechanism of injury was penetrating in 96% (n = 27), the majority of which were gunshot wounds (n = 22, 81%). Most patients (n = 18, 64%) were taken directly to the operating room. Ten (36%) underwent computed tomography scan before going to the operating room, all demonstrating a GE junction injury. All patients underwent repair via laparotomy. One (4%) also required thoracotomy to facilitate delayed reconstruction. GE junction injuries were typically managed with primary repair (n = 22, 79%). Associated injuries were frequent (n = 26, 93%), and injury severity was high (mean Injury Severity Score, 25 [9-75]). Mortality was 25% (n = 7), and all patients required intensive care unit admission. Most did not require total parenteral nutrition (n = 25, 89%) or a surgically placed feeding tube (n = 26, 93%). Of the 13 patients who presented for clinical follow-up, all but one (n = 12, 92%) were eating independently by the first clinic visit. CONCLUSION: GE junction injuries are uncommon and occur almost exclusively after penetrating trauma. Patients are severely injured with a high mortality rate and frequently have associated intracavitary injuries. Most can be fixed through the abdomen alone and do not require thoracotomy for repair. Despite the severity of injuries, the majority of survivors are eating independently by the first clinic visit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level V.