Pediatric penetrating thoracic trauma: Examining the impact of trauma center designation and penetrating trauma volume on outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed the impact of treating center designation and case volume of penetrating trauma on outcomes after pediatric penetrating thoracic injuries (PTI). METHODS: PTI patients <18 years were identified from the National Trauma Data Bank (2013-2016). Centers were categorized by type (Pediatric or Adult) and designation status (Level I, Level II, and other). Performance was calculated as the difference between observed and expected mortality and standardized using the total penetrating trauma volume per center. Expected mortality was calculated using the Trauma Mortality Prediction Model. Pearson correlation and linear mixed-effects models evaluated the association between variables and performance. RESULTS: We identified 4,134 PTI patients treated at 596 trauma centers: 879 (21%) at Adult Level I, 608 (15%) at Adult Level II, 531 (13%) at Pediatric Level I, 320 (8%) at Pediatric Level II, and 1,796 (43%) at other centers. Primary injury mechanisms were firearm-related (58%) and cut/piercing (42%). Overall mortality was 16% and median predicted mortality was 3.6% (IQR: 1.5% - 11.2%). Among patients with thoracic firearm-related injuries, centers with lower penetrating case volume and total trauma care demonstrated significantly worse outcomes. Multivariable analysis revealed Adult Level I centers had superior outcomes compared with all other non-Level I centers. There was no difference in mortality between Pediatric and Adult Level I centers. DISCUSSION: Adult Level I trauma center designation and annual case volume of penetrating thoracic trauma are associated with improved mortality after pediatric firearm-related thoracic injuries. Further study is needed to identify factors in higher volume centers that improve outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Outcomes in adhesive small bowel obstruction from a large statewide database: What to expect after nonoperative management.

BACKGROUND: Although adhesive small-bowel obstruction (ASBO) is frequently managed nonoperatively, little is known regarding outcomes on readmission following this approach. Using a large population-based dataset, we evaluated risk factors for operative intervention and mortality at readmission in patients with ASBO who were initially managed nonoperatively. METHODS: The ASBO patients were identified in the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2007 to 2014 patient discharge database. Patients who were managed operatively at index admission or had an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code for nonadhesive obstructive small bowel disease were excluded. Associations between risk factors and both operative intervention and death following readmission were evaluated using survival analysis. RESULTS: Among 15,963 ASBO patients, 3,103 (19.4%) had at least one readmission. The 1,069 (34.5%) who received an operation during their first readmission presented sooner (175 days vs. 316 days, p < 0.001) and were more likely to die during that readmission (5.2% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001). Operative management at first readmission was associated with younger age, fewer comorbidities, and shorter times to readmission. Patients operatively managed at first readmission had longer times to second readmission compared with nonoperative patients. Stratified analyses using nonoperative patients as the reference over the study period revealed that patients who underwent lysis of adhesions and bowel resection were 5.04 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.82-9.00) as likely to die while those who underwent lysis only were 2.09 times (95% CI, 1.14-3.85) as likely to die. Patients with bowel resection only were at an increased risk for subsequent interventions beyond the first readmission (hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.11-2.87). CONCLUSION: In a large cohort readmitted for ASBO and initially managed nonoperatively, subsequent operative intervention conferred a greater risk of death and a longer time to readmission among survivors. Prospective research is needed to further delineate outcomes associated with initial nonoperative management of ASBO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Outcomes for popliteal artery injury repair after discharge: A large-scale population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although short-term outcomes for popliteal artery injury after endovascular versus open repair appear similar, studies on outcomes after discharge are limited. We evaluated popliteal artery injury repair in a population-based data set. We hypothesized that postdischarge outcomes for open repair are superior to endovascular repair. METHODS: Patients with popliteal artery injury were identified in the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2007-2014 discharge database. Popliteal artery injury and other lower-extremity injuries were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. Procedure codes were evaluated to identify open repair, endovascular repair, fasciotomy, and amputation. Primary outcomes were mortality or amputation. The association between repair method and each outcome was evaluated with logistic regression. Postdischarge amputation and all-cause mortality were evaluated using survival analysis. RESULTS: Among 769 patients with popliteal artery injury, open repair occurred in 456 (59.3%), endovascular repair in 37 (4.3%), combined endovascular and open in 18 (2.3%), and nonoperative management in 258 (33.6%). Fasciotomy was performed more frequently in open than endovascular repair (p = 0.001) during index admission. Amputation rate was also increased in open repair, but this was not significant (p = 0.196). Arterial thromboembolus during index admission was more likely after endovascular or combined endovascular and open compared with open (24.3%, 55.6%, 16.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients requiring both endovascular and open were more likely to undergo amputation postdischarge (hazard ratio, 4.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-14.53). Patients undergoing endovascular repair were more likely to die postdischarge (hazard ratio, 4.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-18.56) compared with patients who had open repair (median, 98.5 days postdischarge). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort with popliteal artery injury, open repair was associated with lower rates of index admission arterial thromboembolus as well as postdischarge amputation and all-cause mortality. We recommend conducting a prospective multicenter study to examine the appropriate use of endovascular repair for this injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.