Epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic vascular injury repair by trauma surgeons and vascular surgeons in a collaborative model.

BACKGROUND: Management roles for peripheral vascular injuries (PVI) are a source of ongoing debate given the concern for the loss of vascular skills among general surgeons and trauma surgeons (TS). We sought to analyze outcomes of PVI managed by TSs or vascular surgeons (VSs). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of a single, Level I trauma center. Trauma patients with PVI who underwent repair from 2010 to 2021 were included. Patients were separated into groups by the surgical specialty (TS or VS) undertaking the first intervention of the injured vessel. RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were included, with 101 (52%) PVI managed by TS and 93 (48%) by VS. The TS group had more penetrating injuries (84% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), were more often hypotensive (17% vs. 6%, p = 0.01), and had a higher median Injury Severity Score (10 vs. 9, p < 0.001). Time from arrival to operating room was lower in the TS group (77 vs. 257 minutes, p < 0.01), with no difference in rates of preoperative imaging. The TS group performed damage-control surgery (DCS) more frequently (21% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in reintervention rates between the two groups after excluding patients that required reintervention for definitive repair after DCS (13% vs. 9%, p = 0.34). Mortality was 8% in the TS group and 1% in the VS group ( p = 0.02) with no deaths related to the PVI repair in either group. There was no difference in PVI repair complication rates between the two groups (18% vs. 13%; p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: In our collaborative model at a high-volume trauma center, a wide variety of PVI are surgically managed by TS with VS. immediately available for consultation or for definitive repair of more complex vascular injuries. Trauma surgeons performed more DCS on higher acuity patients. No difference in vascular-related complications was detected between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Complications Following Temporary Bilateral Internal Iliac Artery Ligation for Pelvic Hemorrhage Control in Trauma.

Background: Temporary bilateral internal iliac artery ligation (TBIIAL) is an option for surgical control of pelvic hemorrhage after trauma. Concerns persist that complications, particularly gluteal necrosis, following TBIIAL should preclude its use, despite a lack of formal research on TBIIAL complications. This study aimed to define complications following TBIIAL for emergent control of traumatic pelvic bleeding.Study Design: Patients undergoing TBIIAL after blunt trauma (2008-2020) at our level 1 trauma center were included without exclusions. Demographics, clinical/injury data, and outcomes were collected. Descriptive statistics summarized study variables. Multivariable analysis of factors independently associated with mortality after TBIIAL was performed.Results: In total, 77 patients undergoing emergent TBIIAL after blunt trauma were identified. Median age was 46 [IQR 29-63] years. Most patients (n = 70, 91%) were severely injured (ISS ≥16), with 43% undergoing resuscitative thoracotomy prior to TBIIAL. No local complications (gluteal necrosis, iatrogenic injury, fascial dehiscence, surgical site infection) after TBIIAL occurred over the 13-year study period. In the first 28 days after injury, median hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days were 0. Mortality was 70% (n = 54). On multivariable analysis, older age was the only variable independently associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.081, P = .028).Conclusion: Zero cases of gluteal necrosis, iatrogenic injury to surrounding structures, or surgical site infection/fascial dehiscence of the exploratory laparotomy occurred over the study period. High concern for gluteal necrosis after TBIIAL in severely injured trauma patients is unfounded and should not prevent a surgeon from obtaining prompt pelvic hemorrhage control with this technique among patients in extremis.