Should We Perform Incidental Appendectomy in Trauma Patients Undergoing Laparotomy?

Incidental appendectomy (IA) is sometimes performed in patients undergoing abdominal operations to prevent subsequent development of appendicitis. Patients who undergo laparotomy for major abdominal trauma are at high risk of developing dense adhesions, increasing the risk of future operations. Therefore, there is a potential benefit to IA for patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent IA during laparotomy for abdominal trauma at a Level 1 trauma center between January 2010, and June 2020. Twenty-three patients underwent IA; they tended to be young (33.7 ± 18.9 years) and male (87%) with 12 penetrating and 11 blunt injuries. Regarding indications, 13 had no documented intra-operative abnormalities of the appendix, 6 patients had a fecalith, and 3 had trauma to the appendix. One patient's appendix was adhered to the peritoneum and one patient had unusual anatomic location. Only one patient developed an appendiceal stump leak after IA.

Anastomotic leak rates after repair of mesenteric bucket-handle injuries: A multi-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Primary aim was to assess the relative risk (RR) of anastomotic leak (AL) in intestinal bucket-handle (BH) compared to non-BH injury. METHODS: Multi-center study comparing AL in BH from blunt trauma 2010-2021 compared to non-BH intestinal injuries. RR was calculated for small bowel and colonic injury using R. RESULTS: AL occurred in 20/385 (5.2%) of BH vs. 4/225 (1.8%) of non-BH small intestine injury. AL was diagnosed 11.6 ± 5.6 days from index operation in small intestine BH and 9.7 ± 4.3 days in colonic BH. Adjusted RR for AL was 2.32 [0.77-6.95] for small intestinal and 4.83 [1.47-15.89] for colonic injuries. AL increased infections, ventilator days, ICU & total length of stay, reoperation, and readmission rates, although mortality was unchanged. CONCLUSION: BH carries a significantly higher risk of AL, particularly in the colon, than other blunt intestinal injuries.

Rates and risk factors for anastomotic leak following blunt trauma-associated bucket handle intestinal injuries: a multicenter study.

Objectives: The risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) after resection and primary anastomosis for traumatic bucket handle injury (BHI) have not been previously defined. This multicenter study was conducted to address this knowledge gap. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study on small intestine and colonic BHIs from blunt trauma between 2010 and 2021. Baseline patient characteristics, risk factors, presence of shock and transfusion, operative details, and clinical outcomes were compared using R. Results: Data on 395 subjects were submitted by 12 trauma centers, of whom 33 (8.1%) patients developed AL. Baseline details were similar, except for a higher proportion of patients in the AL group who had medical comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity (60.6% vs. 37.3%, p=0.015). AL had higher rates of surgical site infections (13.4% vs. 5.3%, p=0.004) and organ space infections (65.2% vs. 11.7%, p<0.001), along with higher readmission and reoperation rates (48.4% vs. 9.1%, p<0.001, and 39.4% vs. 11.6%, p<0.001, respectively). There was no difference in intensive care unit length of stay or mortality (p>0.05). More patients with AL were discharged with an ostomy (69.7% vs. 7.3%, p<0.001), and the mean duration until ostomy reversal was 5.85±3 months (range 2-12.4 months). The risk of AL significantly increased when the initial operation was a damage control procedure, after adjusting for age, sex, injury severity, presence of one or more comorbidities, shock, transfusion of >6 units of packed red blood cells, and site of injury (adjusted RR=2.32 (1.13, 5.17)), none of which were independent risk factors in themselves. Conclusion: Damage control surgery performed as the initial operation appears to double the risk of AL after intestinal BHI, even after controlling for other markers of injury severity. Level of evidence: III.

Simple suture whipstitch closure is a reasonable option for many patients requiring temporary abdominal closure for blunt or penetrating trauma.

Objectives: Multiple temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques are currently used to manage the open abdomen (OA) in severely injured trauma patients, with variability in efficacy and cost. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of two commonly used TAC methods: ABTHERA Negative Pressure Therapy System and whipstitch suture closure (WC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had blunt or penetrating trauma from 2015 to 2021 with OA managed using either ABTHERA, WC, or both. Primary outcomes included overall and intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, number of laparotomies, time to definitive fascial closure, and complications (bleeding, evisceration, wound dehiscence, and reoperation). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare baseline characteristics, outcomes, and complications. Potential mediators of the relationship between the type of TAC and outcomes were explored using mediation analyses. Results: A total of 112 TAC were analyzed; 86 patients had a single type of TAC placement (either WC or ABTHERA), whereas 26 had both types. A majority of patients had blunt trauma in both WC (77%) and ABTHERA (76%) cohorts. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including injury severity (27.5±12.4 and 27.5±12.0 for ABTHERA and WC, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference among individual complications and overall complications (OR=0.622 (0.274 to 1.412)). No differences were found between the outcomes, and any apparent differences seen were mediated by factors such as a higher number of laparotomies. Conclusion: WC is a low-cost option for TAC in trauma, with similar clinical outcomes and complications to ABTHERA. Level of evidence: Level III therapeutic/care management study.

Regional Variations in Microbiology and Outcomes of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Frequency, microbiology, and outcomes of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) could vary across the United States because of differences in locoregional and environmental factors. We synthesized the literature from across the regions of the United States on NSTIs in a systematic review/meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched and screened. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses were performed using 'meta' package in R to determine pooled prevalences. Meta-regression analyses examined moderator effects of risk factors. Results: Twenty-seven studies (2,242 total patients) were included. Pooled prevalences of polymicrobial and monomicrobial infections were 52.2% and 39.9%, respectively. The prevalence of monomicrobial NSTIs increased over the last two decades (p = 0.018), whereas polymicrobial infections declined (p = 0.003). Meta-regression analysis showed that most polymicrobial NSTIs were Fournier gangrene (p < 0.001), whereas monomicrobial NSTIs mostly affected extremities (p < 0.001). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism isolated (predominantly in the South), followed by Bacteroides spp. (predominately in the East) and Streptococcus pyogenes. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) accounted for 11.9% of NSTIs, mainly in the South. The overall mortality rate was 17.8% and declined over last two decades (p < 0.001), with the lowest rate reported in the last decade at 13% without any regional differences. Conclusions: Advancement in the management of NSTIs may have contributed to the observed decline in NSTI-related mortality in the United States. However, the proportion of monomicrobial NSTIs seems to be increasing, possibly because of increased comorbidities affecting extremities. Causative organisms varied by region. Multi-center observational studies are warranted to confirm our observations.

Global patterns of necrotizing soft tissue infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frequency, microbiology, and outcomes of necrotizing soft tissue infections vary based on locoregional and environmental factors; however, there has been no global survey of these patterns. We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis on published reports of necrotizing soft tissue infections from across the globe. METHODS: Peer-reviewed empirical studies examining rates of polymicrobial and monomicrobial necrotizing soft tissue infections with microbial isolation and overall mortality rate were extracted along with geographic location using PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed, adjusting for publication bias. Meta-regression analyses examined moderator effects of risk factors. RESULTS: One hundred and five studies (8,718 total patients) were included. Pooled prevalence of polymicrobial and monomicrobial infections were 53% and 37.9%, respectively. Truncal necrotizing soft tissue infections were commonly polymicrobial (P < .001), whereas monomicrobial infections prevailed in extremities (P = .008). Global prevalence of monomicrobial necrotizing soft tissue infections was observed to increase by 1.1% annually (P = .003). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism globally and in North America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, followed by Streptococcus pyogenes and Escherichia coli. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus accounted for 16% of necrotizing soft tissue infections globally. Overall mortality was 23.1%, observed to decline globally over the last decade (P = .020). No regional differences were noted for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although polymicrobial infections remain predominant worldwide, the incidence of monomicrobial infections is increasing. The observed decline in necrotizing soft tissue infection-related mortality is encouraging and may reflect advances in management, despite major variations in available healthcare resources globally.