The effect of damage control laparotomy on surgical-site infection risks after emergent intestinal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Damage-control laparotomy has been widely used in general surgery. However, associated surgical-site infection risks have rarely been investigated. Damage-control laparotomy allows for additional opportunities for decontamination. We hypothesized that damage-control laparotomy would be associated with lower surgical-site infection risks compared with laparotomy with only primary fascial closure or with primary fascial and skin closure. METHODS: Patients admitted for emergent intestinal surgery from 2006 to 2021 were included. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify surgical-site infection-associated risk factors. Although variables like laparotomy type (damage-control laparotomy, primary fascial closure, and primary fascial and skin closure) were provided by National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, other variables such as number of operations were retrospectively collected. P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Overall, 906 patients were included; 213 underwent damage-control laparotomy, 175 primary fascial closure, and 518 primary fascial and skin closure. Superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical-site infection developed in 66, 6, and 97 patients, respectively. Compared with primary fascial and skin closure, both damage-control laparotomy (odds ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.13-0.73], P = .008) and primary fascial closure (odds ratio, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.02-0.37], P = .001) were associated with lower superficial incisional surgical-site infection but not organ-space surgical-site infection risk (odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.29-2.19] P = .667 and odds ratio, 0.674 [95% CI, 0.21-2.14], P = .502, respectively). Body mass index was associated with increased risk of superficial incisional surgical-site infection (odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.09], P < .001) whereas frailty was associated with organ space surgical-site infection (odds ratio, 3.28 [95% CI, 1.29-8.36], P = .013). For patients who underwent damage-control laparotomy, the number of operations did not affect risk of either superficial incisional surgical-site infection or organ space SSI. CONCLUSION: Herein, compared with primary fascial and skin closure, both damage-control laparotomy and primary fascial closure were associated with lower superficial but not organ space surgical-site infection risks. For patients who underwent damage-control laparotomy, number of operations did not affect surgical-site infection risks.

Use and Outcomes of Dexamethasone in the Management of Malignant Small Bowel Obstruction.

Objective: To describe rates of dexamethasone use in the nonoperative management of malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) and their outcomes. Background: mSBO is common in patients with advanced abdominal-pelvic cancers. Management includes prioritizing quality of life and avoiding surgical intervention when possible. The use of dexamethasone to restore bowel function is recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for mSBO. Yet, it is unknown how often dexamethasone is used for mSBO and whether results from nonresearch settings support its use. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study including unique admissions for mSBO from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. Dexamethasone use and management outcomes were summarized with descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression. Results: Among 571 admissions (68% female, mean age 63 years, 85% history of abdominal surgery) that were eligible and initially nonoperative, 26% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 23%-30%] received dexamethasone treatment (69% female, mean age 62 years, 87% history of abdominal surgery). Dexamethasone use by site ranged from 13% to 52%. Among dexamethasone recipients, 13% (95% CI = 9%-20%) subsequently required nonelective surgery during the same admission and 4 dexamethasone-related safety-events were reported. Amongst 421 eligible admissions where dexamethasone was not used, 17% (95% CI = 14%-21%) required nonelective surgery. Overall, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for nonelective surgery with dexamethasone use compared to without its use was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Using multiple logistic regression, OR after adjusting for site, age, sex, history of abdominal surgery, nasogastric tube, and Gastrografin use was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-1.1). Conclusion: Dexamethasone was used in about 1 in 4 eligible mSBO admissions with high variability of use between tertiary academic centers. This multicenter retrospective cohort study suggested an association between dexamethasone use and lower rates of nonelective surgery, representing a potential opportunity for quality improvement.

Shifting Perspectives: Equal Blunt Cerebrovascular Risk in Low-Versus High-Energy Cervical Fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical implications of screening for blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) after low-energy mechanisms of injury (LEMI) remain unclear. We assessed BCVI incidence and outcomes in LEMI versus high-energy mechanisms of injury (HEMI) patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, blunt trauma adults admitted between July 2015 and June 2021 with cervical spine fractures, excluding single spinous process, osteophyte, and chronic fractures were included. Demographics, comorbidities, injuries, screening and treatment data, iatrogenic complications, and mortality were collected. Our primary end point was to compare BCVI rates between LEMI and HEMI patients. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty patients (78%) were screened for BCVI; 120 were positive for BCVI. LEMI and HEMI groups presented similar BCVI rates (12.6% versus 14.4%; P = 0.640). Compared to HEMI patients (n = 95), LEMI patients (n = 25) were significantly older (79 ± 14.9 versus 54.3 ± 17.4, P < 0.001), more likely to be on anticoagulants before admission (64% versus 23.2%, P < 0.001), and less severely injured (LEMI injury severity score 10.9 ± 6.6 versus HEMI injury severity score 18.7 ± 11.4, P = 0.001). All but one LEMI and 90.5% of the HEMI patients had vertebral artery injuries with no significant difference in BCVI grades. One HEMI patient developed acute kidney injury because of BCVI screening. Eleven HEMI patients developed BCVI-related stroke with two related mortalities. One LEMI patient died of a BCVI-related stroke. CONCLUSIONS: BCVI rates were similar between HEMI and LEMI groups when screening based on cervical spine fractures. The LEMI group exhibited no screening or treatment complications, suggesting that benefits may outweigh the risks of screening and potential bleeding complications from treatment.

Subhypnotic Intravenous Ketamine Improves Patient Satisfaction With Burn Wound Care: A Quality Improvement Project.

Despite advancements in pain management for burn injuries, analgesia often fails to meet our patients' needs. We hypothesized that low doses of intravenous (IV) ketamine as an adjunct to our current protocol would be safe, improving both nurse and patient satisfaction with analgesia during hydrotherapy. Burn patients admitted who underwent hydrotherapy from June 1, 2021, to June 30, 2023 were surveyed. Ketamine was administered with the standard opioid-midazolam regimen. Demographics, oral morphine equivalents, midazolam, ketamine doses and time of administration, and adverse events were collected. Patient and nurse satisfaction scores were collected. The ketamine and no-ketamine groups were compared. P < .05 was considered significant. Eighty-five hydrotherapies were surveyed, 47 without ketamine, and 38 with ketamine. Demographics, comorbidities, %TBSA, and hospital length of stay were not different. The median amount of ketamine given was 0.79 mg/kg [0.59-1.06]. Patients who received ketamine were more likely to receive midazolam (100% vs 61.7%; P < .001), and both oral and IV opioids (94.7% vs 68.1%; P = .002) prior to hydrotherapy and less likely to receive rescue opioids or midazolam during hydrotherapy. Two patients in the ketamine group had hypertension (defined as SBP > 180) that did not require treatment. Nurses tended to be more satisfied with patient pain control when ketamine was used (10 [8-10] vs 9 [7-10], P = .072). Patient satisfaction was higher in the ketamine group (10 [8.8-10] vs 9 [7-10], P = .006). Utilizing subhypnotic dose of IV ketamine for hydrotherapy is safe and associated with increased patient satisfaction.

Optimizing burn wound procedural pain control, efficiency, and satisfaction through integrated nurse and physician education.

Herein, we report the results of a quality improvement project (QI). Following a review of the burn unit practices, a nursing-led, physician supported educational intervention regarding optimal timing, dosage, and indication for medications used during hydrotherapy, including midazolam and opioids, was implemented. We hypothesized that such intervention would support improvement in both nurse and patient satisfaction with pain control management. Patients undergoing hydrotherapy were surveyed. Demographics, opioid dose prescribed (oral morphine equivalents), midazolam use, timing of administration, and adverse events were collected. Patient pain scores (1-10) before and after hydrotherapy and patient and nurse satisfaction scores (1-10) after hydrotherapy were collected. The pre- and post-education populations were compared. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Post-education, administration of opioids (59.1% v. 0%, p < 0.001) and midazolam (59.1% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001) prior to hydrotherapy significantly improved, leading to fewer patients requiring rescue opioids during hydrotherapy (25% vs. 74%, p < 0.001). Hydrotherapy duration significantly decreased post-education (19 [13.3-30] min vs. 32 [18-43] min, p = 0.003). Nurses' ratings of their patient's pain control (9 [7.3-10] vs. 7.5 [6-9], p = 0.004) and ease of procedure (10 [9,10] vs. 9 [7.8-10], p = 0.037) significantly improved. Patients' pain management satisfaction rating did not change, but the number of subjects rating their pain management as excellent tended to increase (36.4% vs. 20%, p = 0.077). Nursing led, physician supported, education can improve medication administration prior to and during hydrotherapy, increasing the ease of the procedure as well as staff satisfaction.