Comparison of nonoperative management with renorrhaphy and nephrectomy in penetrating renal injuries.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with penetrating renal injuries to compare nonoperative management of penetrating renal injuries with renorrhaphy and nephrectomy in light of concerns for unnecessary explorations and increased nephrectomy rates. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the records of 98 penetrating renal injuries from 2003 to 2008. Renal injuries were classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and analyzed based on nephrectomy, renorrhaphy, and nonoperative management. Patient characteristics and outcomes measured were compared between management types. Continuous variables were summarized by means and compared using t test. Categorical variables were compared using χ² test. RESULTS: Nonoperative management was performed in 40% of renal injuries, followed by renorrhaphy (38%) and nephrectomy (22%). Of renal gunshot wounds (n = 79), 26%, 42%, and 32% required nephrectomy, renorrhaphy, and were managed nonoperatively, respectively. No renal stab wound (n = 16) resulted in a nephrectomy and 81% were managed conservatively. Renal injuries managed nonoperatively had a lower incidence of transfusion (34 vs. 95%, p < 0.001), shorter mean intensive care unit (ICU) (3.0 vs. 9.0 days, p = 0.028) and mean hospital length of stay (7.9 vs. 18.1 days, p = 0.006), and lower mortality rate (0 vs. 20%, p = 0.005) compared with nephrectomy but similar to renorrhaphy (transfusion: 34 vs. 36%, p = 0.864; mean ICU: 3.0 vs. 2.8 days, p = 0.931; mean hospital length of stay: 7.9 vs. 11.2 days, p = 0.197; mortality: 0 vs. 6%, p = 0.141). The complication rate of nonoperative management was favorable compared with operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Selective nonoperative management of penetrating renal injuries resulted in a lower mortality rate, lower incidence of blood transfusion, and shorter mean ICU and hospital stay compared with patients managed by nephrectomy but similar to renorrhaphy. Complication rates were low and similar to operative management.

Traumatic abdominal wall hernias: a single-center case series of surgical management.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWHs) are a rare clinical entity that can be difficult to diagnose and manage. There is no consensus on management of TAWH due to its low incidence and complex concomitant injury patterns. We hereby present the largest single-center case series in the USA to characterize associated injury patterns, identify optimal strategies for hernia management, and determine outcomes. METHODS: Patients who presented with a TAWH from blunt trauma requiring operative management were retrospectively identified over a 14-year period. Demographic data, Injury Severity Score (ISS), associated injuries, type of repair, durability of repair, and complications were collected, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified. The average age was 31±11 years, ISS 15±9, and body mass index 33.4±7.1 kg/m2. Mechanisms included falls (13%), motor vehicle collisions (60%), motorcycle accidents (20%), and pedestrian versus motor vehicle collisions (7%). The most commonly associated injuries included colonic injuries (53%), long bone fractures (47%), pelvic fractures (40%), and small bowel injuries (33%). Nineteen hernia repairs were performed: 6 underwent primary suture repair (32%) and 13 used mesh (68%). There were four recurrences. We could not find any significant relationship between contamination and mesh use or recurrence. There was one mortality related to sepsis. DISCUSSION: TAWHs have an associated injury pattern involving fractures and abdominopelvic visceral injuries where a tailored approach is advisable. Without hollow viscous injuries and gross contamination, these hernias can be repaired safely with mesh in the acute setting. However, in patients with gross contamination or hemodynamic instability, the risk of recurrence with primary repair must be weighed against the risk of infection and prolonged surgery with mesh repair. In those cases, a delayed reconstruction in the elective setting may be optimal.

A Randomized Controlled Trial on Intra-Abdominal Irrigation during Emergency Trauma Laparotomy; Time for Yet Another Paradigm Shift.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal volume of abdominal irrigation that will prevent surgical site infections (both deep and superficial), eviscerations and fistula formations; and improve 30-day mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm parallel clinical superiority randomized controlled trial comparing different volumes of effluent (5, 10 and 20 liters) used in trauma patients (both blunt and penetrating) age 14 and above undergoing an emergency laparotomy between April 2002 and July 2004 in a busy urban Level 1 trauma center. RESULTS: After randomization, a total of 204 patients were analyzed. All patient groups were comparable with respect to age, gender distribution, admission injury severity score, and mechanism of injury, estimated blood loss and degree of contamination. The mortality rate overall was 1.96% (4/204).No differences were noted with respect to contamination, wound infection, fistula formation, and evisceration. The twenty liter group (Group III) showed a trend toward an increased incidence of deep surgical site infections when compared to the five liter (Group I) (p=0.051) and ten liter (Group II) (p=0.057) groups. This did not however reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The old surgical adage "the solution to pollution is dilution" is not applicable to trauma patients. Our results suggest that using more irrigation, even when large amounts of contamination have occurred, does not reduce post-operative complications or affect mortality; and it may predispose patients to increased incidence of abscess formation. (Trial registration number: ISRCTN66454589).

Management options of colonoscopic splenic injury.

Injury to the spleen during routine colonoscopy is an extremely rare injury. Diagnosis and management of the injury has evolved with technological advances and experience gained in the management of splenic injuries sustained in trauma. Of the 37 reported cases of colonoscopic splenic injury, 12 had a history of prior surgery or a disease process suggesting the presence of adhesions. Only 6 had noted difficulty during the procedure, and 31 patients experienced pain, shock, or hemoglobin drop as the indication of splenic injury. Since 1989, 21/24 (87.5%) patients have been diagnosed initially using computed tomography or ultrasonography. Overall, only 27.8% have retained their spleens. None have experienced as long a delay as our patient, nor have any had an attempt at percutaneous control of the injury. This report presents an unusual case of a rare complication of colonoscopy and the unsuccessful use of one nonoperative technique, and reviews the experience reported in the world literature, including current day management options.