Management of Extraperitoneal Bladder Injuries in Patients With Pelvic Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries (EBIs) when present with concomitant pelvic fractures is controversial. Current evidence is divided between supporting non-operative management with catheter drainage compared to operative management of bladder injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current management of EBI in the setting of pelvic fractures at our institution. We hypothesize there is no difference between operative and non-operative groups. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with concomitant bladder injuries and pelvic fractures at a level 1 trauma center from 2017 to 2022 was performed. Demographics, injury characteristics, management strategies, and complications were collected. Patients were stratified by management (cystorrhaphy vs non-operative) and compared. RESULTS: Of 90 patients with bladder injuries and pelvic fractures, 50 patients (56%) presented with EBI, 26 patients (29%) presented with only intraperitoneal injuries, and 14 patients (16%) presented with a combined injury. Of patients with EBI, 18 (36%) underwent cystorrhaphy and 32 (64%) underwent non-operative management. There was no difference in demographics, orthopedic pelvic operative intervention, length of stay, or mortality between groups. Patients in the operative cohort had more bladder leaks [7 (39%) vs 4 (13%), P = .0406], compared to those in the non-operative cohort. Composite complications [7 (39%) vs 7 (22%), P = .1984] were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EBI and pelvic fractures who underwent cystorrhaphy had more bladder leaks on follow-up imaging, although there was no difference in composite complications, when compared to those who underwent non-operative management.

Outcomes and Predictors of Delayed Intervention After Renal Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, a zone II hematoma mandated exploration after penetrating trauma, but this has been challenged given potentially higher nephrectomy rates and the advent of therapeutic endovascular and endoscopic interventions. We hypothesized penetrating mechanism was not a predictor for delayed intervention in the modern era. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included renal trauma patients from 3/2019 to 6/2022. Our institutional practice is selective exploration of zone II hematomas for active bleeding and expanding hematoma only, regardless of mechanism. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression (MLR) were performed. RESULTS: One-hundred and forty-four patients were identified, with median age 32 years (IQR:23,49), 66% blunt mechanism, and injury severity score 17(IQR:11,26). Forty-three (30%) required operative intervention, and of the 20 that had a zone II exploration, 3 (15%) underwent renorrhaphy and 17 (85%) underwent nephrectomy. Penetrating patients more frequently underwent immediate operative intervention (67%vs10%,P < .0001), required nephrectomy (27%vs5%,P = .0003), and were less likely to undergo pre-intervention CT (51%vs96%,P < .0001) compared to blunt patients. Delayed renal interventions were higher in penetrating (33%vs13%,P = .004) with no difference in mortality or length of stay compared to blunt mechanism. Ureteral stent placement and renal embolization were the most common delayed interventions. On MLR, the only independent predictor for delayed intervention was need for initial operative intervention (OR 3.803;95%CI:1.612-8.975,P = .0023). Four (3%) required delayed nephrectomy, of which only one underwent initial operative intervention without zone 2 exploration. CONCLUSIONS: The most common delayed interventions after renal trauma were renal embolization and ureteral stent. Penetrating mechanism was not a predictor of delayed renal intervention in a trauma center that manages zone II retroperitoneal hematomas similarly regardless of mechanism.

Clinical Implications of Over- and Under-Triage Using Need for Trauma Intervention and Cribari Indices.

BACKGROUND: Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI) score was proposed to help identify injured trauma patients while minimizing under (UT) and over triage (OT). Using a national database, we aimed to describe UT and OT of NFTI vs standard Cribari method (CM) and hypothesized triage sensitivity remains poor. METHODS: The 2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was queried. Demographics, mechanism, verification level, interfacility transfer (IF), and level of activation were collected. Patients were stratified by both NFTI [+ vs -] and CM [Injury severity score (ISS) < 15 vs > 15]. UT was defined as NFTI + or ISS >15 without full trauma activation. RESULTS: 1,030,526 patients were identified in TQIP. 84,969 were UT and 97,262 were OT using NFTI while 94,020 were UT and 108,823 were OT using CM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of NFTI is 49%, 89%, 45%, and 90%, respectively vs 43%, 87%, 39%, and 89% of CM, respectively. Age was higher in the UT group using both scores (52 vs 42, P < .0001 and 54 vs 42, P < .0001, respectively). Using MLR, level 2 and 3 verification, blunt mechanism, female, IF, and older age were associated with UT in both NFTI and CM. Level 1 verification, penetrating mechanism, male, no IF, and younger age were associated with OT. CONCLUSIONS: Current prehospital triage criteria have poor sensitivity for identifying severely injured trauma patients by both NFTI and CM. UT increases as age of the patient increases. Further studies are needed to improve triage.

Management of Penetrating Cardiac Injuries With Pericardial Window and Drainage in Select Patients.

BACKGROUND: Management of penetrating chest injuries with a positive pericardial window (PW) are presumed cardiac injuries and traditionally result in sternotomy. However, there is some evidence in the literature that select patients can be managed with PW, lavage, and drainage (PWLD). METHODS: All patients with penetrating chest trauma who underwent PW and/or sternotomy over a 5-year period were identified. Patients were stratified by operative intervention [PW + sternotomy vs PWLD] and compared. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of therapeutic sternotomy. RESULTS: Of the 146 patients who underwent PW and/or sternotomy included in the study, 126 patients underwent PW, 39 underwent sternotomy, and 10 underwent PWLD. There was no difference in demographics, LOS, ICU LOS, vent days, or mortality in patients who underwent PW + sternotomy, compared to patients who underwent PWLD. In the PWLD group, one patient returned to the OR for recurrent pericardial effusion and no patients required sternotomy. Multivariable logistic regression identified ISS as an independent predictor of therapeutic sternotomy (OR 1.160; 95% CI 1.006-1.338, P = .0616). Interestingly, positive FAST, significant CT findings, and trajectory were not predictors of therapeutic sternotomy. There were 7 patients with a left hemothorax and negative FAST found to have a positive PW and cardiac injury mandating sternotomy and repair. CONCLUSION: Penetrating cardiac injury can be managed with PWLD in select patients. Positive FAST, significant findings on CT, and trajectory do not mandate sternotomy. A negative FAST in the setting of a hemothorax does not rule out a cardiac injury.

The Role of Indirect Calorimetry in Care of the Surgical Patient.

Purpose of Review: This is a review of recent literature on the role of indirect calorimetry in surgical nutrition. Recent Findings: All critical care societal guidelines recommend the use of indirect calorimetry as the standard of care to determine energy needs. Recent studies confirm discrepancy between measured and equation-predicted energy expenditure and further demonstrate improved outcomes with indirect calorimetry-guided nutrition. Patients that undergo ECMO, CRRT and those with COVID-19 would benefit from the use of indirect calorimetry. Summary: Indirect calorimetry-guided nutrition is the standard of care in mechanically ventilated surgical patients.

Serial CT for Nonoperatively Managed Splenic Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: The role of serial computed tomography (CT) in the nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries (NOMSIs) remains unclear. The purpose of the study was to determine the utility of serial CT of Grade 2-5 NOMSI in the modern era. METHODS: Blunt splenic injuries were identified over a 3.5-year period, ending in 6/2020. Our institutional protocol for NOMSI mandates a repeat 24-hour CT for Grade 2-5 injuries. Patients age<18, Grade 1 injuries and patients that underwent intervention prior to repeat scan were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, timing of events (admission, CTs, splenectomy, and angiography), injury details, procedural details, total transfusion requirements, complications, length of stay, mortality, and discharge disposition were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: 219 patients with Grade 2-5 NOMSI had both an initial and 24-hour CT after exclusions. 24-hour CT identified 14 patients with new PSA(s) and 11 (5%) went to angiography within 24 hours with 9 (4%) undergoing angioembolization and 4 (2%) had splenectomy. Two hundred and four (93%) had no intervention though eventually 12 went on to angiography and 6 went for splenectomy. The 24-hour CT rarely altered management in the absence of clinical indication or prior PSA on initial CT with 5 (2%) receiving a therapeutic embolization and 2 (1%) had a nontherapeutic angiogram. No deaths were attributable to splenic injury. CONCLUSIONS: Routine 24-hour CT for NOMSI did not impact management. Clinical status and change in exam may warrant repeat CT in select cases in the setting of a plausible alternate explanation. Prompt angioembolization or splenectomy is more appropriate in clear-cut cases of failed NOMSI.

Cryoprecipitate use during massive transfusion: A propensity score analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cryoprecipitate is frequently administered as an adjunct to balanced transfusion in the setting of traumatic hemorrhage. However, civilian studies have not demonstrated a clear survival advantage, and prior observational studies noted selection bias when analyzing cryoprecipitate use. Additionally, due to the logistics involved in cryoprecipitate administration, it is inconsistently implemented alongside standardized massive transfusion protocols. This study aims to evaluate the effects of early cryoprecipitate administration on inpatient mortality in the setting of massive transfusion for exsanguinating trauma and to use propensity score analysis to minimize selection bias. METHODS: The registry of an urban level 1 trauma center was queried for adult patients who received at least 6 units of packed red blood cells within 4 h of presentation. Univariate analysis, multiple logistic regression, and propensity score matching were performed. RESULTS: 562 patients were identified. Patients with lower median RTS (6.86 (IQR 4.09-7.84) vs 7.6 (IQR 5.97-7.84), P<0.01), decreased Glasgow coma scale (12 (IQR 4-15) vs 15 (IQR 10-15), P<0.01), and increased lactate (7.5 (IQR 4.3-10.2) vs 4.9 (IQR 3.1-7.2), P<0.01) were more commonly administered cryoprecipitate. Mortality was greater among those who received cryoprecipitate (40.2% vs 23.7%, p<0.01) on univariate analysis. Neither multiple logistic regression (OR 0.917; 95% confidence interval 0.462-1.822; p = 0.805) nor propensity score matching (average treatment effect on the treated 2.3%, p = 0.77) revealed that cryoprecipitate administration was associated with a difference in inpatient mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving cryoprecipitate within 4 h of presentation were more severely injured at presentation and had increased inpatient mortality. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score analysis failed to show that early administration of cryoprecipitate was associated with survival benefit for exsanguinating trauma patients. The prospect of definitively assessing the utility of cryoprecipitate in exsanguinating hemorrhage warrants prospective investigation.