Pregnancy in trauma-A Western Trauma Association algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The Western Trauma Association has undertaken publication of best practice clinical practice guidelines on multiple trauma topics. These guidelines are based on scientific evidence, case reports, and best practices per expert opinion. Some of the topics covered by this consensus group do not have the ability to have randomized controlled studies completed because of complexity, ethical issues, financial considerations or scarcity of experience. Care of the pregnant trauma patient is one of these clinically complex situations that is based on physiologic data, standard trauma care, trauma care experience, and outcomes. METHODS: Review of multiple evidence- based guidelines, case reports, and expert opinion were compiled and reviewed. RESULTS: The algorithm is attached with detailed explanation of each step, supported by data if available. CONCLUSION: Resuscitative and trauma care of the mother is the utmost priority. STUDY TYPE: Algorithm, expert opinion, consensus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests/Criteria; Level III.

Intra-abdominal Pressure Monitoring During Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Open Abdomen.

INTRODUCTION: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is commonly used in open abdomen management, where there may be a simultaneous need for prevention of abdominal hypertension, tamponade of hemorrhage, and continuous fascial tension. The regional pressure dynamics of vacuum dressings are poorly understood. METHODS: Three duroc swine underwent mid-line laparotomy and application of vacuum open abdomen dressing, with and without sponge packing. Twenty-five catheters were placed throughout the abdomen to capture and record pressures in each quadrant as the vacuum system was ranged between (-75 mmHg to -200 mmHg pressure). Vital signs and ventilator pressures were measured and recorded concomitantly. RESULTS: No variations in ventilatory pressures or vital signs were observed with any setting. NPWT changed pressure in seven of seventy-five catheters (9%), five of which were related to abdominal packing. When data were grouped into abdominal wall, perihepatic, perisplenic, and deep abdominal regions, there was no significant change in abdominal pressure when packing was absent. With packing, only the abdominal wall region showed a pressure change, reaching a maximum of 20% of the set vacuum pressure. CONCLUSIONS: NPWT does only little to change the intraabdominal pressure, except in superficial locations in packed abdomens and does not appear to cause hemodynamic changes in a porcine open abdomen model. While NPWT may play an important role in fluid scavenging and fascial tensioning, there are likely to be few benefits or drawbacks specifically related to negative abdominal pressure in the deep abdomen.

The Case for Integrating Medical-Legal Partnerships Into Trauma Care.

INTRODUCTION: Medical-legal needs are health-harming adverse social conditions with a legal remedy. Medical-legal partnerships in primary care settings have been proposed to address these needs for at-risk patients already seeking medical care. Our hypothesis is that trauma patients represent a unique population that may be more likely to have baseline medical-legal needs. METHODS: A trauma-specific medical-legal needs survey was developed. Adult trauma patients who were able to give consent and were admitted to our urban Level I hospital were surveyed. Medical-legal needs were tabulated from the surveys. Those patients in the top decile of medical-legal needs were categorized as having a High Burden of medical-legal needs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify those independent risk factors for having a High Burden of medical-legal needs. RESULTS: A total of 566 participants completed the survey (78.2% response rate). The mean number of medical-legal needs for our population was 2.5 (SD = 3.1). 73% of our respondents had at least one medical-legal need. The most common needs were Housing (n = 229, 40%) and Education/Employment (n = 223, 39%). Older age (aOR = 3.01, 95% CI 1.2-8.1, P = 0.02), being separated or divorced (aOR = 4.25, 95% CI 1.2-14.0, P = 0.02), self perceived poor health (aOR = 8.4, 95% CI 2.61-26.86, P < 0.001), penetrating mechanism of injury (aOR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.22-5.2, P = 0.01), and having been admitted to the hospital for a longer period of time (aOR = 5.48, 95% CI 1.55-19.4, P = 0.008) were all independently associated with a High Burden of medical-legal needs. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients have a high baseline burden of medical-legal needs. Medical-legal partnerships embedded in trauma teams may offer an innovative strategy to help address long-term health outcomes in a highly vulnerable population that would not otherwise have contact with the healthcare system.

Measurement of Trauma Caregiver Stress: Validation of Heart rate variability in a Real-World Surgical Setting.

BACKGROUND: Acute stress is a potentially modifiable risk-factor that contributes to errors in trauma care. Research on stress mitigation is limited by the lack of a validated objective measure of surgeon stress. We sought to validate HRV in a real-world surgical setting by comparison to the Subjective Units of Distress Score (SUDS), and correlation with self-reported peak stress moments. METHODS: Attending and resident surgeons on the trauma team at a Level I Trauma Center wore armbands to measure HRV. Stress-associated blunting of HRV was analyzed using the standard deviation of N-N intervals (SDNN) and the root mean square of successive differences . Perceived stress was measured with the SUDS at random intervals and at perceived stress peaks. SUDS and HRV metrics were compared with a mixed effect regression model. Correlation between binned SUDS quartiles and HRV was evaluated. HRV at reported peak-stress moments were compared to shift baseline values. RESULTS: Twelve participants were monitored for 340 h, producing 135 SUDS responses and 65 peak-stress time points. Regression analysis demonstrated no correlation between HRV and SUDS. With a binned approach, decreased SDNN was associated with an elevated SUDS (P = 0.03). The self-identified peak-stress moments correlated with decreases in both SDNN and root mean square of successive differences (P = 0.02; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HRV by SDNN analysis correlated with heightened perceived stress, supporting its validity as a measure. However, the wide, frequent variation of HRV tracings within subjects, the sensitivity of HRV to of analytic technique, and the impact of confounders may limit its utility as an education or research tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V Diagnostic test.

Concomitant bladder and rectal injuries: Results from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Rectal Injury Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Combined traumatic injuries to the rectum and bladder are rare. We hypothesized that the combination of bladder and rectal injures would have worse outcomes than rectal injury alone. METHODS: This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 traumatic rectal injury patients who were admitted to one of 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, and management of rectal injury were collected. Patients who sustained a rectal injury alone were compared with patients who sustained a combined injury to the bladder and rectum. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if abdominal complications, mortality, and length of stay were impacted by a concomitant bladder injury after adjusting for cofounders. RESULTS: There were 424 patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury, of which 117 (28%) had a combined injury to the bladder. When comparing the patients with a combined bladder/rectal injury to the rectal alone group, there was no difference in admission demographics admission physiology, or Injury Severity Score. There were also no differences in management of the rectal injury and no difference in abdominal complications (13% vs. 16%, p = 0.38), mortality (3% vs. 2%, p = 0.68), or length of stay (17 days vs. 21 days, p = 0.10). When looking at only the 117 patients with a combined injury, the addition of a colostomy did not significantly decrease the rate of abdominal complications (14% vs. 8%, p = 0.42), mortality (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.99), or length of stay (17 days vs. 17 days, p = 0.94). After adjusting for cofounders (AAST rectal injury grade, sex, damage-control surgery, diverting colostomy, and length of stay) the presence of a bladder injury did not impact outcomes. CONCLUSION: For patients with traumatic rectal injury, a concomitant bladder injury does not increase the rates of abdominal complications, mortality, or length of stay. Furthermore, the addition of a diverting colostomy for management of traumatic bladder and rectal injury does not change outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; prognostic/therapeutic.

Rectal Injury After Foreign Body Insertion: Secondary Analysis From the AAST Contemporary Management of Rectal Injuries Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion. METHODS: Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative). RESULTS: After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified.

Fluoroquinolone-based versus ß-lactam-based regimens for complicated intra-abdominal infections: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) are common and confer significant morbidity, mortality and costs. In this era of evolving antimicrobial resistance, selection of appropriate empirical antimicrobials is paramount. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials compared the effectiveness and safety of fluoroquinolone (FQ)-based versus ß-lactam (BL)-based regimens for the treatment of patients with cIAIs. Primary outcomes were treatment success in the clinically evaluable (CE) population and all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Subgroup analyses were performed based on specific antimicrobials, infection source and isolated pathogens. Seven trials (4125 patients) were included. FQ-based regimens included moxifloxacin (four studies) or ciprofloxacin/metronidazole (three studies); BL-based regimens were ceftriaxone/metronidazole (three studies), carbapenems (two studies) or piperacillin/tazobactam (two studies). There was no difference in effectiveness in the CE (2883 patients; RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.95-1.04) or ITT populations (3055 patients; RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.01). Mortality (3614 patients; RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.75-1.43) and treatment-related adverse events (2801 patients; RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.33) were also similar. On subset analysis, moxifloxacin was slightly less effective than BLs in the CE (1934 patients; RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99) and ITT populations (1743 patients; RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.98). Although FQ- and BL-based regimens appear equally effective and safe for the treatment of cIAIs, limited data suggest slightly inferior results with moxifloxacin. Selection of empirical coverage should be based on local bacterial epidemiology and patterns of resistance as well as antimicrobial stewardship protocols.

Traumatic rectal injuries: Is the combination of computed tomography and rigid proctoscopy sufficient?

BACKGROUND: There are no clear guidelines for the best test or combination of tests to identify traumatic rectal injuries. We hypothesize that computed tomography (CT) and rigid proctoscopy (RP) will identify all injuries. METHODS: American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study (2004-2015) of patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury. Patients with known rectal injuries who underwent both CT and RP as part of their diagnostic workup were included. Only patients with full thickness injuries (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade II-V) were included. Computed tomography findings of rectal injury, perirectal stranding, or rectal wall thickening and RP findings of blood, mucosal abnormalities, or laceration were considered positive. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were identified. Mean age was 32 years, 85(79%) were male, and 67(63%) involved penetrating mechanisms. A total of 36 (34%) and 100 (94%) patients had positive CT and RP findings, respectively. Only 3 (3%) patients had both a negative CT and negative RP. On further review, each of these three patients had intraperitoneal injuries and had indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan including pneumoperitoneum or sacral fracture. CONCLUSION: As stand-alone tests, neither CT nor RP can adequately identify traumatic rectal injuries. However, the combination of both test demonstrates a sensitivity of 97%. Intraperitoneal injuries may be missed by both CT and RP, so patients with a high index of suspicion and/or indirect evidence of rectal injury on CT scan may necessitate laparotomy for definitive diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, level IV.

Extremity Vascular Injury Management: Good Outcomes Using Selective Referral to Vascular Surgeons.

Revascularization after extremity vascular injury has long been considered an important skill among trauma surgeons. Increasingly, some trauma surgeons defer vascular repair in response to training or practice patterns. This study was designed to document results of extremity revascularization surgery to evaluate trauma surgeon outcomes and judicious referral of more complex injuries to vascular surgeons (VAS). The trauma registry of an urban level I trauma center was used to identify all patients from 2003 to 2013 who underwent an early (<24 hours) procedure for urgent management of acute injury to extremity vessels. Patients were managed by trauma (TRA) versus VAS based on the practice pattern of the on-call trauma surgeon. Injury and outcome variables were recorded. Of 115 patients, 84 patients were revascularized by trauma and 31 vascular surgeries. There was no difference in complication rates or frequency of any type of complication associated with repairs performed by VAS or TRA. There were similar rates between the two groups for patients with multiple injuries, such as venous, bone or tendon, and nerve injury to the affected extremity. One VAS patient and two TRA patients developed compartment syndrome. In appropriately selected patients, trauma surgeons achieve good outcomes after revascularization of injured extremities.

Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level I trauma centers: The results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal injuries have been historically treated with a combination of modalities including direct repair, resection, proximal diversion, presacral drainage, and distal rectal washout. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal rectal injuries may be selectively managed without diversion and the addition of distal rectal washout and presacral drainage in the management of extraperitoneal injuries are not beneficial. METHODS: This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 of all patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury and were admitted to one of the 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, location and grade of injury, and management of rectal injury were collected. The primary outcome was abdominal complications (abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and fascial dehiscence). RESULTS: After exclusions, there were 785 patients in the cohort. Rectal injuries were intraperitoneal in 32%, extraperitoneal in 58%, both in 9%, and not documented in 1%. Rectal injury severity included the following grades I, 28%; II, 41%; III, 13%; IV, 12%; and V, 5%. Patients with intraperitoneal injury managed with a proximal diversion developed more abdominal complications (22% vs 10%, p = 0.003). Among patients with extraperitoneal injuries, there were more abdominal complications in patients who received proximal diversion (p = 0.0002), presacral drain (p = 0.004), or distal rectal washout (p = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, distal rectal washout [3.4 (1.4-8.5), p = 0.008] and presacral drain [2.6 (1.1-6.1), p = 0.02] were independent risk factors to develop abdominal complications. CONCLUSION: Most patients with intraperitoneal injuries undergo direct repair or resection as well as diversion, although diversion is not associated with improved outcomes. While 20% of patients with extraperitoneal injuries still receive a presacral drain and/or distal rectal washout, these additional maneuvers are independently associated with a three-fold increase in abdominal complications and should not be included in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.