An AAST-MITC analysis of pancreatic trauma: Staple or sew? Resect or drain?

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic trauma results in high morbidity and mortality, in part caused by the delay in diagnosis and subsequent organ dysfunction. Optimal operative management strategies remain unclear. We therefore sought to determine CT accuracy in diagnosing pancreatic injury and the morbidity and mortality associated with varying operative strategies. METHODS: We created a multicenter, pancreatic trauma registry from 18 Level 1 and 2 trauma centers. Adult, blunt or penetrating injured patients from 2005 to 2012 were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity of CT scan identification of main pancreatic duct injury was calculated against operative findings. Independent predictors for mortality, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and pancreatic fistula and/or pseudocyst were identified through multivariate regression analysis. The association between outcomes and operative management was measured. RESULTS: We identified 704 pancreatic injury patients of whom 584 (83%) underwent a pancreas-related procedure. CT grade modestly correlated with OR grade (r 0.39) missing 10 ductal injuries (9 grade III, 1 grade IV) providing 78.7% sensitivity and 61.6% specificity. Independent predictors of mortality were age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), lactate, and number of packed red blood cells transfused. Independent predictors of ARDS were ISS, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and pancreatic fistula (OR 5.2, 2.6-10.1). Among grade III injuries (n = 158, 22.4%), the risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst was reduced when the end of the pancreas was stapled (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.9) compared with sewn and was not affected by duct stitch placement. Drainage alone in grades IV (n = 25) and V (n = 24) injuries carried increased risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst (OR 8.3, 95% CI 2.2-32.9). CONCLUSION: CT is insufficiently sensitive to reliably identify pancreatic duct injury. Patients with grade III injuries should have their resection site stapled instead of sewn and a duct stitch is unnecessary. Further study is needed to determine if drainage alone should be employed in grades IV and V injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/Diagnostic study, level III.

Pneumatosis Intestinalis Predictive Evaluation Study (PIPES): a multicenter epidemiologic study of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Pneumatosis intestinalis (PI) is associated with numerous adult conditions, ranging from benign to life threatening. To date, series of PI outcomes consist of case reports and small retrospective series. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study, involving eight centers, of PI from January 2001 to December 2010. Demographics, medical history, clinical presentation, and outcomes were collected. Primary outcome was the presence of pathologic PI defined as confirmed transmural ischemia at surgery or the withdrawal of clinical care and subsequent mortality. Forward logistic regression and a regression tree analysis was used to generate a clinical prediction rule for pathologic PI. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, 500 patients with PI were identified. Of this number, 299 (60%) had benign disease, and 201 (40%) had pathologic PI. A wide variety of variables were statistically significant predictors of pathologic PI on univariate comparison. In the regression model, a lactate of 2.0 or greater was the strongest independent predictor of pathologic PI, with hypotension or vasopressor need, peritonitis, acute renal failure, active mechanical ventilation, and absent bowel sounds also demonstrating significance. Classification and regression tree analysis was used to create a clinical prediction rule. In this tree, the presence of a lactate value of 2.0 or greater and hypotension/vasopressor use had a predictive probability of 93.2%. CONCLUSION: Discerning the clinical significance of PI remains a challenge. We identified the independent predictors of pathologic PI in the largest population to date and developed of a basic predictive model for clinical use. Prospective validation is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.