High-grade liver injuries with contrast extravasation managed initially with interventional radiology versus observation: A secondary analysis of a WTA multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â€‹= â€‹0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â€‹> â€‹0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients.

Trauma resident exposure in Canada and operative numbers (TraumaRECON): a national multicentre retrospective review of operative and nonoperative trauma teaching.

BACKGROUND: General surgeons play an important role in the provision of trauma care in Canada and the current extent of their trauma experience during training is unknown. We sought to quantify the operative and nonoperative educational experiences among Canadian general surgery trainees. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of major operative exposures experienced by general surgery residents, as identified using institutional trauma registries and subsequent chart-level review, for 2008-2018. We also conducted a site survey on trauma education and structure. RESULTS: We collected data on operative exposure for general surgery residents from 7 programs and survey data from 10 programs. Operations predominantly occurred after hours (73% after 1700 or on weekends) and general surgery residents were absent from a substantial proportion (25%) of relevant trauma operations. The structure of trauma education was heterogeneous among programs, with considerable site-specific variability in the involvement of surgical specialties in trauma care. During their training, graduating general surgery residents each experienced around 4 index trauma laparotomies, 1 splenectomy, 1 thoracotomy, and 0 neck explorations for trauma. CONCLUSION: General surgery residents who train in Canada receive variable and limited exposure to operative and nonoperative trauma care. These data can be used as a baseline to inform the application of competency-based medical education in trauma care for general surgery training in Canada.

Are Surgeons Going to Be Left Holding the Bag? Incisional Hernia Repair and Intra-Peritoneal Non-Absorbable Mesh Implant Complications.

Ventral incisional hernias are common indications for elective repair and frequently complicated by recurrence. Surgical meshes, which may be synthetic, bio-synthetic, or biological, decrease recurrence and, resultingly, their use has become standard. While most patients are greatly benefited, mesh represents a permanently implanted foreign body. Mesh may be implanted within the intra-peritoneal, preperitoneal, retrorectus, inlay, or onlay anatomic positions. Meshes may be associated with complications that may be early or late and range from minor to severe. Long-term complications with intra-peritoneal synthetic mesh (IPSM) in apposition to the viscera are particularly at risk for adhesions and potential enteric fistula formation. The overall rate of such complications is difficult to appreciate due to poor long-term follow-up data, although it behooves surgeons to understand these risks as they are the ones who implant these devices. All surgeons need to be aware that meshes are commercial devices that are delivered into their operating room without scientific evidence of efficacy or even safety due to the unique regulatory practices that distinguish medical devices from medications. Thus, surgeons must continue to advocate for more stringent oversight and improved scientific evaluation to serve our patients properly and protect the patient-surgeon relationship as the only rationale long-term strategy to avoid ongoing complications.

Should surgeon-performed intraoperative ultrasound be the preferred test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries in operative trauma cases?

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of multiple tests for detecting the presence of a main pancreatic duct injury remains poor. Given the central importance of main duct integrity for both subsequent treatment algorithms and patient outcomes, poor test reliability is problematic. The primary aim was to evaluate the comparative test performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries. METHODS: All severely injured adult patients with pancreatic trauma (2010-2021) were evaluated. Patients who received an IOUS pancreas-focused evaluation, with Grades III, IV, and V injuries (main duct injury) were compared with those with Grade I and Grade II trauma (no main duct injury). Test performances were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 248 pancreatic injuries, 74 underwent an IOUS. The additional mix of diagnostic studies (CT, MRCP, ERCP) was variable across grade of injury. Of these 74 IOUS cases for pancreatic injuries, 48 (64.8%) were confirmed as Grades III, IV, or V main duct injuries. The patients were predominantly young (median age = 33, IQR:21-45) blunt injured (70%) males (74%) with severe injury demographics (injury severity score = 28, (IQR:19-36); 30% hemodynamic instability; 91% synchronous intra-abdominal injuries). Thirty-five percent of patients required damage-control surgery. Patient outcomes included a median 13-day hospital length of stay and 1% mortality rate. Test performance was variable across groups (CT = 58% sensitive/77% specific; MRCP = 71% sensitive/100% specific; ERCP = 100% sensitive; IOUS = 98% sensitive/100% specific). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative ultrasound is a highly sensitive and specific test for detecting main pancreatic duct injuries. This technology is simple to learn, readily available, and should be considered in patients who require concurrent non-damage-control abdominal operations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

When is it safe to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after blunt solid organ injury? A prospective American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal time to initiate venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) after blunt solid organ injury remains controversial, as VTE mitigation must be balanced against bleeding promulgation. Evidence from primarily small, retrospective, single-center work suggests that VTEp ≤48 hours is safe and effective. This study was undertaken to validate this clinical practice. METHODS: Blunt trauma patients presenting to 19 participating trauma centers in North America were screened over a 1-year study period beginning between August 1 and October 1, 2021. Inclusions were age older than 15 years; ≥1 liver, spleen, or kidney injury; and initial nonoperative management. Exclusions were transfers, emergency department death, pregnancy, and concomitant bleeding disorder/anticoagulation/antiplatelet medication. A priori power calculation stipulated the need for 1,158 patients. Time of VTEp initiation defined study groups: Early (≤48 hours of admission) versus Late (>48 hours). Bivariate and multivariable analyses compared outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1,173 patients satisfied the study criteria with 571 liver (49%), 557 spleen (47%), and 277 kidney injuries (24%). The median patient age was 34 years (interquartile range, 25-49 years), and 67% (n = 780) were male. The median Injury Severity Score was 22 (interquartile range, 14-29) with Abbreviated Injury Scale Abdomen score of 3 (interquartile range, 2-3), and the median American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade of solid organ injury was 2 (interquartile range, 2-3). Early VTEp patients (n = 838 [74%]) had significantly lower rates of VTE (n = 28 [3%] vs. n = 21 [7%], p = 0.008), comparable rates of nonoperative management failure (n = 21 [3%] vs. n = 12 [4%], p = 0.228), and lower rates of post-VTEp blood transfusion (n = 145 [17%] vs. n = 71 [23%], p = 0.024) when compared with Late VTEp patients (n = 301 [26%]). Late VTEp was independently associated with VTE (odd ratio, 2.251; p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Early initiation of VTEp was associated with significantly reduced rates of VTE with no increase in bleeding complications. Venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis initiation ≤48 hours is therefore safe and effective and should be the standard of care for patients with blunt solid organ injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic and Care Management; Level III.

Extracorporeal life support in trauma: Indications and techniques.

BACKGROUND: Clarity about indications and techniques in extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in trauma is essential for timely and effective deployment, and to ensure good stewardship of an important resource. Extracorporeal life support deployments in a tertiary trauma center were reviewed to understand the indications, strategies, and tactics of ECLS in trauma. METHODS: The provincial trauma registry was used to identify patients who received ECLS at a Level I trauma center and ECLS organization-accredited site between January 2014 and February 2021. Charts were reviewed for indications, technical factors, and outcomes following ECLS deployment. Based on this data, consensus around indications and techniques for ECLS in trauma was reached and refined by a multidisciplinary team discussion. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients underwent ECLS as part of a comprehensive trauma resuscitation strategy. Eighteen patients underwent venovenous ECLS and seven received venoarterial ECLS. Nineteen patients survived the ECLS run, of which 15 survived to discharge. Four patients developed vascular injuries secondary to cannula insertion while four patients developed circuit clots. On multidisciplinary consensus, three broad indications for ECLS and their respective techniques were described: gas exchange for lung injury, extended damage control for severe injuries associated with the lethal triad, and circulatory support for cardiogenic shock or hypothermia. CONCLUSION: The three broad indications for ECLS in trauma (gas exchange, extended damage control and circulatory support) require specific advanced planning and standardization of corresponding techniques (cannulation, circuit configuration, anticoagulation, and duration). When appropriately and effectively integrated into the trauma response, ECLS can extend the damage control paradigm to enable the management of complex multisystem injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Inferior vena cava tumor thrombus: clinical outcomes at a canadian tertiary center.

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the surgical management and outcomes of patients with malignancies affecting the IVC. METHODS: This was a retrospective study that considered patients undergoing surgery for IVC thrombectomy in Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2021. Parameters of interest included primary malignancy, the extent of IVC involvement, surgical strategy, and medium-term outcomes. RESULTS: Six patients underwent surgical intervention for malignancies that affected the IVC. One patient had a retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma, 1 had hepatocellular carcinoma with thrombus extending into the IVC and right atrium, 1 had adrenocortical carcinoma with IVC thrombus extending into the right atrium, and 3 had clear cell renal cell carcinoma with thrombus extending into the IVC. Surgical strategy for the IVC thrombectomy varied where 5 patients required the institution of cardiopulmonary bypass and underwent deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. No patient died perioperatively. One patient died 15-months post-operatively from aggressive malignancy. CONCLUSION: Different types of malignancy can affect the IVC and surgical intervention is usually indicated for these patients. Herein, we have reported the outcomes of IVC thrombectomy at our center.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis: Are we underutilizing a new technology?

The progressive inflammatory nature of chronic pancreatitis and its sparse therapeutic toolbox remain obstacles in offering patients durable solutions for their symptoms. Obstruction of the main pancreatic duct by either strictures or stones represents a scenario worthy of therapeutic focus, as nearly all patients with pancreatitis eventually have intraductal stones. A more recent option for removal of main duct stones is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). In an effort to explore the role of ESWL in a Canadian setting, we evaluated our initial experience over an 8-year period (2011-2019).

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study. METHODS: The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer. DISCUSSION: OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

Current use and utility of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and pancreatic duct stents: A secondary analysis from the Western Trauma Association multicenter trials group on pancreatic injuries.

INTRODUCTION: The single most important predictor of pancreas-specific complications (PSCs) after pancreatic trauma is injury to the main pancreatic duct (MPD). Pancreatography has been recommended to evaluate the integrity of the MPD. In addition, pancreatic duct stents have been proposed to prevent or treat PSC. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in diagnosing MPD injury. We further sought to determine whether stents were effective in preventing PSC or facilitated the resolution of pancreatic leaks or fistulae. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective review of pancreatic injuries in patients 15 years and older from 2010 to 2018, focusing on patients who underwent MRCP or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), was performed. Final pancreatic injury grade was determined based on all available assessments, ultimately adjudicated by the site principal investigator. Data were analyzed using various statistical tests where appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-three centers reported on 1,243 patients. A total of 216 underwent pancreatography-137 had MRCP and 115 ERCP, with 36 having both. The sensitivity of MRCP for MPD injury was 37%, the specificity was 94%, the positive predictive value was 77%, and the negative predictive value was 73%. When compared with ERCP, MRCP findings were discordant in 64% of cases. Pancreatic stents were placed in 77 patients; 48 (62%) were to treat PSC, with no clear benefit. Twenty-nine had prophylactic stents placed. There did not appear to be benefit in reduced PSC compared with the entire study group or among patients with high-grade pancreatic injuries. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of MRCP to evaluate the integrity of the MPD does not appear to be superior to computed tomography scan. Consequently, the results of MRCP should be interpreted with caution. The current data do not support prophylactic use of pancreatic stents; they should be studied in a prospective trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.