RESUMO
Background: Acute pain due to rib fractures causes significant in-hospital morbidity and impacts patients' quality of life after discharge. Intraoperative transthoracic cryoneurolysis of the intercostal nerves can improve postoperative pain; however, non-surgical patients are provided limited analgesia options. Here, we describe our experience with a bedside cryoanalgesia technique for management of acute rib fracture pain. Methods: Five patients at a single level I trauma center completed bedside intercostal nerve cryoneurolysis (INC) using a handheld cryotherapy device and ultrasound guidance. Relative pain ratings (scale 0-10/10) and maximal incentive spirometry (ISmax) volumes were taken prior to the procedure as a baseline. Patients were observed for 24 hours after procedure, with relative pain ratings and ISmax recorded at 1, 8, 16, and 24 hours after procedure. Results: Our patients were 29-88 years old and had one to five single-sided rib fractures. At baseline, they had high pre-procedure pain ratings (7-10/10) and ISmax volumes of 800-2000 mL. Many had improvements in their pain rating but little change in their ISmax at 1 hour (1-5/10 and 1000-2000 mL, respectively) and 8 hours (1-5/10 and 1250-2400 mL, respectively). ISmax volumes improved by 16 hours (1500-2400 mL) with comparable pain ratings (0-5/10). At 24 hours, pain ratings and ISmax ranged from 0 to 8/10 and from 1500 mL to 2400 mL, respectively. Each patient had improved pain control and ISmax volumes compared with their pre-procedure values. All patients reported the procedure as an asset to their recovery at discharge. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates patients with rib fractures may experience improved pain ratings and ISmax values after INC. Percutaneous INC appears to be a viable adjunct to multimodal pain control for patients with rib fractures and should be considered in patients with difficult pain control. Further studies are required to fully assess INC safety, efficacy, post-discharge outcomes, and utility in patients with altered mental status or on mechanical ventilation. Level of evidence: Level V, case series.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating observation versus angioembolization (AE) for blunt liver injuries (BLT) with contrast extravasation (CE) on computed tomography imaging have yielded inconsistent conclusions, primarily due to limitations in single-center and/or retrospective study design. Therefore, this multicenter study aims to compare an observation versus AE-first approach for BLT, hypothesizing decreased liver-related complications (LRCs) with observation. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective observational study (2019-2021) across 23 centers. Adult patients with BLT + CE undergoing observation or AE within 8 hours of arrival were included. The primary outcome was LRCs, defined as perihepatic fluid collection, bile leak/biloma, pseudoaneurysm, hepatic necrosis, and/or hepatic abscess. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate risk factors associated with LRCs. RESULTS: From 128 patients presenting with BLT + CE on imaging, 71 (55.5%) underwent observation-first and 57 (45.5%) AE-first management. Both groups were comparable in age, vitals, mechanism of injury, and shock index (all p > 0.05), however the AE group had increased frequency of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grade IV injuries (51.0% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.002). The AE cohort demonstrated increased rates of in-hospital LRCs (36.8% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.038), emergency department representation (25.0% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.025), and hospital readmission for LRCs (12.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.012). However, the two cohorts had similar mortality rates (5.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.912). After adjusting for age, ISS, and grade of liver injury, an AE-first approach had a similar associated risk of LRCs compared with observation-first management (odds ratio, 1.949; 95% confidence interval, 0.673-5.643; p = 0.219). CONCLUSION: Patients with blunt liver injury and CE undergoing an observation-first approach were associated with a similar adjusted risk of LRCs and rate of mortality compared with AE-first approach. Overall, this calls for reevaluation of the role of routine AE in blunt liver trauma patients with CE. Future prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.
Assuntos
Embolização Terapêutica , Fígado , Ferimentos não Penetrantes , Humanos , Ferimentos não Penetrantes/terapia , Ferimentos não Penetrantes/complicações , Ferimentos não Penetrantes/mortalidade , Embolização Terapêutica/métodos , Feminino , Masculino , Fígado/lesões , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Conduta Expectante , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Escala de Gravidade do FerimentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â+ âExtrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â+ âExtrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â+ âExtrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â+ âExtrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â= â0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â> â0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â+ âExtrav patients.
Assuntos
Embolização Terapêutica , Extravasamento de Materiais Terapêuticos e Diagnósticos , Fígado , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fígado/lesões , Fígado/diagnóstico por imagem , Embolização Terapêutica/métodos , Radiologia Intervencionista , Conduta Expectante , Estudos Retrospectivos , Angiografia , Idoso , Adulto , Meios de ContrasteRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Trauma is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Early detection of life-threatening injuries leads to improved survival. Computed tomography (CT) scanning has become the modality of choice for early detection of injuries in the stable patient. Some studies have associated selective imaging (Selective-CT) with equivalent outcomes compared to whole body imaging (Pan-CT) with lower costs and radiation exposure. Within the geriatric population, however, the utility of Pan-CT remains controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if a difference exists between Selective-CT and Pan-CT imaging in the geriatric trauma patient. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Level 3 (G60) trauma activations presenting to our urban Level I trauma center between June 2016 and June 2019 was performed. Pan-CT was defined by ICD-10 codes indicating a head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and pelvis CT series. Patients with missing images and those who were transferred from other institutions were excluded. Logistic regression controlling for age, gender, injury type, severity, and Glasgow Coma Score was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1014 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 30.9% underwent Pan-CT (n = 314), 48.9% had Selective-CT (n = 497), and 20.2% received no CT imaging (n = 203). After logistic regression, no clinically significant variations in emergency department length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ventilator days, discharge disposition, missed injury rate, or mortality rate were observed between imaging strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Pan-CT provides no clinically significant advantage over Selective-CT in the geriatric trauma patient.
Assuntos
Exposição à Radiação , Ferimentos não Penetrantes , Idoso , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Centros de Traumatologia , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Escala de Gravidade do FerimentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in healthcare have been attributed to socioeconomic inequalities while the relative risk (RR) of traumatic injury in people of color has yet to be described. METHODS: Demographics of our patient population were compared to the population of our service area. The racial and ethnic identities of gunshot wound (GSW) and motor vehicle collision (MVC) patients were used to establish RR of traumatic injury adjusting for socioeconomic status defined by payor mix and geography. RESULTS: GSW assaults were more common in Blacks (59.1%) while self-inflicted GSWs were more common in Whites (46.2%). RR of having a GSW was 4.65 times greater (95% CI 4.03-5.37; p < 0.01) among Blacks than other populations. MVC patients were 36.8% Black, 26.6% White, and 32.6% Hispanic. Blacks had an increased risk of MVC compared to other races (RR 2.13; 95% CI 1.96-2.32; p < 0.01). The racial and ethnic identity of the patient was not a predictor of GSW or MVC mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Increased risk of GSW and MVC was not correlated with local population demographics or socioeconomic status.
Assuntos
Acidentes de Trânsito , Ferimentos e Lesões , Ferimentos por Arma de Fogo , Humanos , Acidentes de Trânsito/estatística & dados numéricos , Atenção à Saúde , Hispânico ou Latino/estatística & dados numéricos , Grupos Raciais/etnologia , Grupos Raciais/estatística & dados numéricos , Ferimentos por Arma de Fogo/epidemiologia , Ferimentos por Arma de Fogo/etnologia , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/etnologia , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Ferimentos e Lesões/epidemiologia , Ferimentos e Lesões/etnologia , Risco , Determinantes Sociais da Saúde/etnologia , Determinantes Sociais da Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Classe Social , Brancos/estatística & dados numéricos , Negro ou Afro-Americano/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients. METHODS: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs. PIV vs. CVC). RESULTS: There were 1,410 access attempts that occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40 years (27-59 years) and an Injury Severity Score of 22 [10-34]. Nine hundred thirty-two PIV, 204 IO, and 249 CVC were attempted. Seventy percent of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0 minutes (3.2-8.0 minutes). Intraosseous had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt, 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt, 100% vs. 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO, 36 [23-60] seconds; PIV, 44 [31-61] seconds; CVC 171 [105-298]seconds) and was significantly different between IO versus CVC ( p < 0.001) and PIV versus CVC ( p < 0.001) but not PIV versus IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes versus 6.7 minutes ( p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraosseous is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. Intraosseous access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.
Assuntos
Cateteres Venosos Centrais , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Feminino , Humanos , Adulto , Estudos Prospectivos , Ressuscitação , Infusões Intravenosas , Injeções Intravenosas , Infusões IntraósseasRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The management of liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patients is variable and includes primary treatment strategies of observation (OBS), angiography (interventional radiology [IR]) with angioembolization (AE), or operative intervention (OR). We aimed to evaluate the management of patients with liver injuries with active extravasation on computed tomography (CT) imaging, hypothesizing that AE will have more complications without improving outcomes compared with OBS. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients who underwent CT within 2 hours after arrival with extravasation (e.g., blush) on imaging were included. Exclusion criteria included cirrhosis, nontraumatic hemorrhage, transfers from outside facilities, and pregnancy. No hemodynamic exclusion criteria were used. The primary outcome was liver-specific complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay and mortality. Angioembolization patients were compared with patients treated without AE. Propensity score matching was used to match based on penetrating mechanism, liver injury severity, arrival vital signs, and early transfusion. RESULTS: Twenty-three centers enrolled 192 patients. Forty percent of patients (n = 77) were initially OBS. Eleven OBS patients (14%) failed nonoperative management and went to IR or OR. Sixty-one patients (32%) were managed with IR, and 42 (69%) of these had AE as an initial intervention. Fifty-four patients (28%) went to OR+/- IR. After propensity score matching (n = 34 per group), there was no difference in baseline characteristics between AE and OBS. The AE group experienced more complications with a higher rate of IR-placed drains for abscess or biloma (22% vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and an increased overall length of stay ( p = 0.01). No difference was noted in transfusions or mortality. CONCLUSION: Observation is highly effective with few requiring additional interventions. Angioembolization was associated with higher rate of secondary drain placement for abscesses or biloma. Given this, a trial of OBS and avoidance of empiric AE may be warranted in hemodynamically stable, liver-injured patient with extravasation on CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.
Assuntos
Embolização Terapêutica , Ferimentos não Penetrantes , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Embolização Terapêutica/métodos , Ferimentos não Penetrantes/complicações , Fígado/diagnóstico por imagem , Fígado/lesões , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Estudos Retrospectivos , Escala de Gravidade do FerimentoRESUMO
Cholecystocolonic fistula (CCF) is a rare complication of biliary tract disease. Increased use of imaging has aided in diagnosing these fistulae preoperatively and has established laparoscopy as a safe alternative to laparotomy. Here, we present a 79-year-old male who presented to the emergency room with abdominal pain and was diagnosed with choledocholithiasis. CT scan revealed a CCF, and he underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). He was followed closely to allow maturation of the fistula, and then, da Vinci® Xi robotic cholecystectomy and ligation were performed. Although current comparisons to laparoscopy have yet to demonstrate a clinical advantage, robotic assistance enhances dexterity, visualization, and ergonomics. Our case is one of the first documented successful operative management of CCF using the da Vinci® Xi robot.
RESUMO
Endometriosis is a well-described pathology, with anatomic location of endometrial cell implantation extending both intraperitoneal and rarely extraperitoneal. Interestingly, previous reports indicated that the spleen enjoys immunity to endometriosis. Here, we present a patient with unremitting abdominal pain who, upon further workup, revealed multicystic disease of the spleen. The patient underwent an open splenectomy with pathology revealing intraparenchymal endometriosis likely due to seeding from traumatic splenorrhaphy. Two-week follow-up demonstrated resolution of symptoms and a well-healing incision with no postoperative complications.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Tourniquet use for extremity hemorrhage control has seen a recent increase in civilian usage. Previous retrospective studies demonstrated that tourniquets improve outcomes for major extremity trauma (MET). No prospective study has been conducted to date. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in MET patients with prehospital tourniquet use. We hypothesized that prehospital tourniquet use in MET decreases the incidence of patients arriving to the trauma center in shock. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively for adult patients with MET at 26 Level I and 3 Level II trauma centers from 2015 to 2020. Limbs with tourniquets applied in the prehospital setting were included in the tourniquet group and limbs without prehospital tourniquets were enrolled in the control group. RESULTS: A total of 1,392 injured limbs were enrolled with 1,130 tourniquets, including 962 prehospital tourniquets. The control group consisted of 262 limbs without prehospital tourniquets and 88 with tourniquets placed upon hospital arrival. Prehospital improvised tourniquets were placed in 42 patients. Tourniquets effectively controlled bleeding in 87.7% of limbs. Tourniquet and control groups were similarly matched for demographics, Injury Severity Score, and prehospital vital signs (p > 0.05). Despite higher limb injury severity, patients in the tourniquet group were less likely to arrive in shock compared with the control group (13.0% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.04). The incidence of limb complications was not significantly higher in the tourniquet group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study is the first prospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet use for civilian extremity trauma. Prehospital tourniquet application was associated with decreased incidence of arrival in shock without increasing limb complications. We found widespread tourniquet use, high effectiveness, and a low number of improvised tourniquets. This study provides further evidence that tourniquets are being widely and safely adopted to improve outcomes in civilians with MET. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
Assuntos
Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Extremidades/lesões , Hemorragia/prevenção & controle , Torniquetes , Adulto , Hemorragia/etiologia , Hemorragia/terapia , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Choque/prevenção & controle , Torniquetes/efeitos adversos , Centros de Traumatologia , Ferimentos e Lesões/complicaçõesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID-19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement of > 50% or Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≥ 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the Pao2 to Fio2 ratio values were significantly (P < .017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of Pao2 to Fio2 ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P = .11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P = .03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P = .11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P = .19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit. INTERPRETATION: The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04357730; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.
Assuntos
COVID-19/complicações , Pandemias , Insuficiência Respiratória/tratamento farmacológico , SARS-CoV-2 , Trombose/complicações , Ativador de Plasminogênio Tecidual/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , COVID-19/sangue , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Fibrinolíticos/administração & dosagem , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tempo de Tromboplastina Parcial , Insuficiência Respiratória/sangue , Insuficiência Respiratória/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Trombose/sangue , Trombose/tratamento farmacológico , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Uncompensated care (UC) is healthcare provided with no payment from the patient or an insurance provider. UC directly contributes to escalating healthcare costs in the USA and potentially impacts patient care. In Texas, there has been a steady increase in the number of trauma centers and UC volumes without an increase in trauma funding of UC. The method of calculating UC trauma funds in Texas is imprecise as it is driven by Medicaid volumes and not actual trauma care costs. METHODS: Five years of annual trauma UC disbursement reports from the Texas Department of State Health Services were used to determine changes in UC economic considerations for level I, II, and III trauma centers in the largest urban trauma service areas (TSAs). Data for UC costs, compensation, and TSA demographics were used to assess variations. Statistical significance was determined using a Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's pairwise comparison post-hoc analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: TSA-E (Dallas-Fort Worth area) has 33% of the level I trauma centers in Texas (n=6) and yet serves only 27% of the total state population across 14 metropolitan and 5 non-metropolitan counties. Since 2015, TSA-E has shown higher UC costs (p<0.02) and lower reimbursement (p<0.01) than the second largest urban hub, TSA-Q (Houston area). TSA-E level I trauma centers trended towards decreased UC reimbursements. DISCUSSION: The unregulated expansion of trauma centers in Texas has led to an unprecedented increase in hospitals participating in trauma care. The unbalanced allocation of UC funding could lead to further economic instability, compromise resource allocation, and negatively impact patient care in an already fragile healthcare environment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Retrospective economic analysis and evaluation.