RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Fixation of major fractures plays a pivotal role in the surgical treatment of polytrauma patients. In addition to ongoing discussions regarding the optimal timing in level I trauma centers, it appears that the respective trauma systems impact the implementation of both, damage control and safe definitive surgery strategies. This study aimed to assess current standards of polytrauma treatment in a Europe-wide survey. METHODS: A survey, developed by members of the polytrauma section of ESTES, was sent online via SurveyMonkey®, between July and November 2020, to 450 members of ESTES (European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery). Participation was voluntary and anonymity was granted. The questionnaire consisted of demographic data and included questions about the definition of "polytrauma" and the local standards for the timing of fracture fixation. RESULTS: In total, questionnaires of 87 participants (19.3% response rate) were included. The majority of participants were senior consultants (50.57%). The mean work experience was 19 years, and on average, 17 multiple-injured patients were treated monthly. Most of the participants stated that a polytrauma patient is defined by ISS ≥ 16 (44.16%), followed by the "Berlin Definition" (25.97%). Systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, tachycardia or vasopressor administration (86.84%), pH deviation, base excess shift (48.68%), and lactate > 4 mmol (40.79%) or coagulopathy defined by ROTEM (40.79%) were the three most often stated indicators for shock. Local guidelines (33.77%) and the S-3 Guideline by the DGU® (23.38%) were mostly stated as a reference for the treatment of polytrauma patients. Normal coagulation (79.69%), missing administration of vasopressors (62.50%), and missing clinical signs of "SIRS" (67.19%) were stated as criteria for safe definite secondary surgery. CONCLUSION: Different definitions of polytrauma are used in the clinical setting. Indication for and the extent of secondary (definitive) surgery are mainly dependent on the polytrauma patient`s physiology. The «Window of Opportunity¼ plays a less important role in decision making.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to gather an expert opinion survey and to evaluate the suitability of summarized indications and interventions for DCO. BACKGROUND: The indications to perform temporary surgery in musculoskeletal injuries may vary during the hospitalization and have not been defined. We performed a literature review and an expert opinion survey about the indications for damage control orthopaedics (DCO). METHODS: Part I: A literature review was performed on the basis of the PubMed library search. Publications were screened for damage control interventions in the following anatomic regions: "Spine", "Pelvis", "Extremities" and "Soft Tissues". A standardized questionnaire was developed including a list of damage control interventions and associated indications. Part II: Development of the expert opinion survey: experienced trauma and orthopaedic surgeons participated in the consensus process. RESULTS: Part I: A total of 646 references were obtained on the basis of the MeSH terms search. 74 manuscripts were included. Part II: Twelve experts in the field of polytrauma management met at three consensus meetings. We identified 12 interventions and 79 indications for DCO. In spinal trauma, percutaneous interventions were determined beneficial. Traction was considered harmful. For isolated injuries, a new terminology should be used: "MusculoSkeletal Temporary Surgery". CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates a detailed description of the management consensus for abbreviated musculoskeletal surgeries. It was consented that early fixation is crucial for all major fractures, and certain indications for DCO were dropped. Authors propose a distinct terminology to separate local (MuST surgery) versus systemic (polytrauma: DCO) scenarios.
