RESUMEN
A diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) is used to protect a distal gastrointestinal anastomosis at risk of leakage. While patients typically prefer early DLI closure, surgeons vary in opinion regarding optimal timing. This study evaluated whether the timing of DLI closure impacts outcomes.A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent DLI creation within one health care system between 2012 and 2020. Patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared across ileostomies closed in ≤2 months, 2-4 months, and >4 months. Outcomes examined included anastomotic leak, other complications, reintervention, and death within 30 days.A total of 500 DLIs were analyzed for the study, 455 of which were closed. The three closure groups were similar in patient characteristics and comorbidities. None of the outcome variables analyzed in this study demonstrated a statistically significant difference between groups, suggesting that in patients otherwise fit for surgery, DLI closure can be safely performed within 2 months of creation.
Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica , Ileostomía , Humanos , Ileostomía/efectos adversos , Fuga Anastomótica/prevención & control , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/efectos adversos , Intestino Delgado/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Survival following a traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) remains poor despite research focused on specific management and guideline adaptation. Previous research has identified factors including age, arresting rhythm, injury severity and distance from hospital to be associated with prehospital TCA outcomes. The present study aimed to review the local incidence of TCA to inform local practice within a mature trauma system. METHODS: A retrospective trauma database review from 2008 to 2021 was conducted at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. Patients were categorised by prehospital and in-hospital arrest, prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and year in relation to TCA management protocol changes. Descriptive comparative analysis was performed with the primary outcome of interest being survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge was similar in patients in whom TCA occurred in the prehospital environment and hospital (24 vs 29%). Mechanism of injury, response to intervention and location of cardiac arrest were important outcome associations. Patients with a positive focused assessment with sonography in trauma scan were less likely to achieve ROSC but more likely to survive to discharge. The frequency of prehospital interventions remained similar after the guideline changes; with more patients arriving to the hospital with improved haemodynamic parameters and increased survival. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the identification and immediate management of TCA. No patients survived if they did not achieve ROSC by hospital arrival, questioning the role for aggressive management beyond the ED in this cohort. Future research will focus on the identification of patients with potentially positive survival outcomes and further define futile intervention factors.