Oesophageal stent placement to treat a massive iatrogenic duodenal defect after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Iatrogenic duodenal injury occurring during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is managed surgically, though rarely a large, persistent fistula is refractory to surgical interventions. We present the case of a 40-year-old woman transferred to our centre following elective LC for a reported perforated duodenal ulcer. An uncontained leak was found to originate from a 1.5 cm duodenal defect, with no evidence of ulceration. A duodenostomy tube was placed. One month after abdominal closure, the patient continued to have a persistent, large duodenal fistula. A through-the-scope covered oesophageal stent was placed under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance. Five weeks later, it was successfully retrieved and no subsequent extravasation of contrast from the duodenum was noted. Unrecognised iatrogenic duodenal injuries sustained during LC can be catastrophic. In cases of massive duodenal defects and high-output biliary fistula uncontrolled after surgical intervention, endoscopic-guided and fluoroscopic-guided placement of a fully covered oesophageal stent may be lifesaving.

Interhospital transfer of liver trauma in New Mexico: a state of austere resources.

BACKGROUND: There is debate in the trauma literature regarding the effect of prolonged prehospital transport on morbidity and mortality. This study analyzes the management of hepatic trauma patients requiring surgery and compares the outcomes of the group that was transferred to the University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH) from outside institutions, to the directly admitted group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The UNMH Trauma Database was queried from 2005-2012. Of 674 patients who sustained liver injuries, 163 required surgery: 46 patients (28.2%) underwent interhospital transfer, and 117 (71.8%) were directly admitted. Variables examined included transfer status, trauma mechanism, transport type, injury severity score (ISS), liver injury grade, and associated injuries. Outcome variables included length of stay (LOS) and 30-day mortality. Outcomes of the transfer group (TG) and direct admit group (DAG) were compared. RESULTS: Both TG and DAG had the same median age (31 y, P = 0.33). The blunt-to-penetrating ratio was the same for each group (48% blunt: 52% penetrating, P = 1.0). Median ISS was 25 for the TG and 26 for the DAG. Grade III or higher injury occurred in 29 (63%) of the TG and in 68 (58%) of the DAG (P = 0.56). Median hospital LOS was 14 d for TG and 9 d for DAG (P = 0.15). Median intensive care unit LOS was 4 d for both groups (P = 0.71). Thirty-day mortality was 20% in each group (P = 0.27). Using a multiple logistic regression model for the outcome of mortality, only age, ISS, and liver injury grade, not transfer status or transport type, had a significant effect on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in liver injury grade, ISS, LOS, and mortality between TG and DAG. In the patient population of our study, transfer status did not affect outcome.

The sentinel placement of an open abdomen negative pressure unit.

The open abdomen is a common condition after a trauma necessitating celiotomy with the inability to close the fascia either due to damage control surgery or abdominal compartment syndrome. Traditionally the open abdomen has been approached with the use of the open abdomen temporary abdominal closure (Barker Vacuum Pack Dressing). More recently there has been the addition of the ABThera™ open abdomen negative pressure unit introduced by KCI. Our case report is based on the first patient to have placement of the ABThera™ device.

Trauma laparotomy in a rural setting before transfer to a regional center: does it save lives?

BACKGROUND: In the rural setting, long distances may necessitate that a patient undergo emergency laparotomy before transfer to a regional trauma center for definitive management. The purpose of this study was to review the experience of three regional trauma centers with such treated patients. METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent emergency laparotomy for trauma before transfer, identified from the respective databases of participating centers over a 6-year period. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients met the study criteria. Twenty-six (46%) were transferred primarily for management of the abdominal injury, and 14 of these patients (25% overall) underwent damage control procedures. Overall survival was 82%. Logistic regression demonstrated that transfer for treatment of the extra-abdominal injury was the only significant predictor of survival (odds ratio, 34.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-655.24). CONCLUSION: Although patients undergoing laparotomy who were subsequently transferred for management of abdominal injury have reasonable outcome, patients transferred primarily for management of extra-abdominal injury seem to have a survival advantage.

Trauma patient willingness to participate in alcohol screening and intervention.

BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions for alcohol disorders in the trauma setting are not routine. Perceived barriers to screening and treatment include the perception that patients find the topic offensive and the feasibility of screening all patients. The hypothesis of the study was that discussing alcohol use would be acceptable to patients independent of race or screening test score. Additional aims were to describe whether patients had access to alcohol screening via a primary care physician, to see what types of treatment patients thought appropriate, and to evaluate the feasibility of screening all trauma patients for alcohol disorders. METHODS: We surveyed 150 trauma inpatients regarding the offensiveness of discussing alcohol use and the appropriateness of different treatment options. We asked whether they had access to a primary care physician. As part of our routine screening program, we evaluated the proportion of patients we were able to screen with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, refusal rates, and whether any patients were not screened. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression were used to evaluate responses. RESULTS: A part-time research assistant approached 90% of 163 patients. Seventy percent were successfully screened, of which 45% screened positive for problematic alcohol use. Of the patients we were unable to screen, one third did not speak English and one half had injuries precluding interaction, leaving 16 patients (9.8%) that were "missed." One patient (<1%) refused screening. One hundred fifty consecutive patients participated in the survey. The ethnic distribution was 26% Native American, 40% Hispanic, 30% white, 2% African American, and 2% other. A brief counseling session was acceptable to all ethnic groups. There were ethnic differences in acceptability of other types of treatment. Ninety-four percent of patients thought that somebody from the trauma team should talk with patients about alcohol. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score did not predict whether patients would be offended (p = 0.48). Forty-five percent had a primary care physician and only 10% had ever spoken to their physician about alcohol use. CONCLUSION: The majority of trauma patients are not offended by discussing alcohol use while hospitalized for injury and can feasibly be screened for alcohol disorders. Treatment types may need to be culturally tailored.

Patient outcomes in academic medical centers: influence of fellowship programs and in-house on-call attending surgeon.

BACKGROUND: There are very few data on characteristics or policies that improve patient outcomes in academic medical institutions. We were interested in 2 such policies or characteristics that are commonly implemented in academic centers: an in-house on-call attending physician policy and the existence of postgraduate medical education. HYPOTHESIS: An in-house attending surgeon on-call policy and the presence of trauma and critical care fellowship programs improve outcomes of critically injured patients. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. Two cohorts were analyzed: blunt trauma (n = 601; mortality, 16.0%) and penetrating abdominal trauma (n = 503; mortality, 7.5%). SETTING: Thirty-one academic level I trauma centers, 10 (32.3%) with in-house on-call policy and 11 (35.5%) with fellowship programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay. RESULTS: In-house on-call surgeon policy had no impact on mortality or length of hospital or intensive care unit stay for either the blunt or penetrating trauma cohort. However, the presence of fellowship programs was associated with a significant decrease in blunt trauma mortality (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.8) and a decrease in length of intensive care unit stay (mean difference, 4.7 days; 95% CI, 0.6-8.8 days) and hospital stay (mean difference, 3.2 days; 95% CI, 0.6-5.9 days). There were no significant effects of fellowship programs on penetrating trauma outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: An in-house on-call attending surgeon policy is not associated with improved outcomes. In contrast, presence of a trauma and surgical critical care fellowship program, a potential surrogate marker for an institution that is committed to this specialty interest, is associated with improved outcomes for critically injured patients. An investment in advanced postgraduate medical education has potential benefits in patient care and outcomes.

Blood culturing practices in a trauma intensive care unit: does concurrent antibiotic use make a difference?

BACKGROUND: Febrile trauma patients have repeated blood cultures drawn during a prolonged hospitalization. We examined the diagnostic yield of blood cultures in severely injured patients to determine whether concurrent antimicrobial therapy or prophylactic administration of antibiotics affects blood culture growth. We also determined how rapidly growth changed to determine whether total numbers of blood cultures could be decreased. The hypotheses of the study were that concurrent antimicrobial administration affects blood culture yield, prophylactic administration alters the culture result, and repetitive culturing is unnecessary. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of trauma patients with minimum Injury Severity Score of 15 and minimum 5-day intensive care unit length of stay was performed. The dates and results of blood cultures and antibiotic type and administration dates were recorded. "Prophylactic" antibiotics were defined as antibiotics administered on admission to the unit. Computer software was used to match the blood culture date to the period of antimicrobial administration. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients met entry criteria, and 208 charts were complete for review. One hundred twenty-nine patients had 347 sets of blood cultures drawn. The positive blood culture rate was 10.8% in patients off antibiotics, and 13.9% in patients on antibiotics (p = 0.68). All prophylactic antibiotics included a beta-lactam. Only 18% of positive blood cultures in patients receiving prophylactic antibiotics were sensitive to beta-lactams as opposed to 59% sensitivity in those who did not receive prophylaxis (p = 0.03). One hundred seventy-six sets of blood cultures were performed after an initial positive culture. Only three patients with an initial positive culture had a second positive culture with a different organism. The mean time to culturing a new organism after initial growth was 19 days. CONCLUSION: Concurrent antimicrobial administration does not alter blood culture yield. Prophylactic administration alters the type of organism cultured. Little new information is gained from repetitive culturing.