Coming Together: A Review of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma's Updated Kidney Injury Scale to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Management.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to review the renal injury scale revised by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in 2018, to identify terms commonly used in discussions between radiologists and surgeons and to properly apply the new classification parameters to various MDCT findings. CONCLUSION. The updated 2018 kidney injury scale from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma incorporates the delineations necessary for modern nonoperative management of renal trauma, including percutaneous and endourologic techniques, and discusses the imaging criteria for each injury grade.

Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure. SEARCH METHODS: On 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.For our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I2 = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).For our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).Similarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).Absorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.We had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).Consequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.

When Guidelines Fail: Euglycemic Diabetic Ketoacidosis After Bariatric Surgery in a Patient Taking a Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor: A Case Report.

A 42-year-old woman with diabetes mellitus type 2 treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin underwent elective bariatric gastric bypass. The canagliflozin was held for 24 hours preoperatively. She physiologically decompensated on postoperative day 2. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis that required intensive care management. This diagnosis was challenging to make as the patient never became hyperglycemic. We use this case to discuss the pharmacology and potential risk of perioperative sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor administration and to advocate for revision of current guidelines regarding the perioperative management of these agents.

Opioid analgesia for acute abdominal pain in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There are long-held concerns that analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain may obscure the physical examination and lead to missing a diagnosis of appendicitis. Despite evidence to the contrary, analgesia continues to be underutilized and suboptimally dosed in children with acute abdominal pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if opioids provide analgesia without an increase in side effects and appendicitis-related complications. METHODS: Trials were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1946-2013), EMBASE (1980-2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2013), CINAHL (1981-2013), and Google Scholar (2013). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of children aged 0-18 years with acute abdominal pain that compared any opioid analgesic to placebo were included. The methodologic qualities of studies and the overall quality of evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, respectively. RESULTS: Six RCTs met inclusion criteria, and each compared a single-dose parenteral opioid to a placebo, providing data on 342 children aged 5 to 18 years. The pooled mean pre/post difference in self-reported pain scores was 19.61 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.16 to 40.37 mm) lower in those receiving opioid analgesia. There was no significant increase in the risk of perforation or abscess associated with opioids in cases of appendicitis (relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.93). The risk of side effects was significantly greater in patients who received opioids (RR = 6.06, 95% CI = 1.10 to 33.49). Subtherapeutic dosing of opioids was detected in all six trials. CONCLUSIONS: The use of opioids in undifferentiated acute abdominal pain in children is associated with no difference in pain scores and an increased risk of mild side effects. However, there is no increased risk of perforation or abscess. The overall quality of evidence is low, suggesting the need for larger, high-quality trials that are powered to detect both serious complications of appendicitis and determine the most efficacious opioid dosing for children.