Evidence-based guidelines are equivalent to a liberal computed tomography scan protocol for initial patient evaluation but are associated with decreased computed tomography scan use, cost, and radiation exposure.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that trauma patient evaluations using evidence-based treatment guidelines (evidence-based group [EBG]), which include serial examinations and limited computed tomography (CT) scans in an established trauma center, would be associated with equivalent outcomes but with decreased CT scan usage, decreased cost, and less radiation exposure compared with a liberal CT scan approach (conventional group [CONV]). METHODS: Fifteen evidence-based treatment guidelines were developed using published literature and in collaboration with other institutional departments. These were implemented on July 1, 2010. Prospectively collected data during a 4-month period were compared with a similar period in 2008 when CONV was used. RESULTS: In 2010 (EBG), there were 611 patients compared with 612 in 2008 (CONV). Their average Injury Severity Score was 11.93 versus 8.77 (p < 0.0001), and the total CT scans were 757 and 1194, respectively (p < 0.001). The average APACHE II and hospital length of stay did not significantly vary. No missed or delayed injuries were identified. Estimated CT scan charges were $1,842,534 versus $2,935,024. The average number of scans per patient were 1.2 (EBG) versus 1.9 (CONV). Regarding radiation dosimetry, the estimated average computed tomography dose index (CTDI) per patient were 36.7 versus 53.31 mGy, and the estimated average dose-length product per patient were 889.91 versus 1364.11 mGy·cm. CONCLUSION: EBG, including serial examinations, provided equivalent diagnostic data to CONV for initial workup but reduced CT scan usage, CT scan charges, and average radiation exposure per patient. This strategy may be beneficial in institutions where serial monitoring can be assiduously provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case management study, level IV.

Short-term outcomes of splenectomy avoidance in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Strategies for splenic preservation for trauma patients have gained acceptance; however, meaningful outcome evaluations have not been performed. To better understand the consequences of managing patients with splenic injuries, the short-term outcomes of different types of management strategies were examined. We defined splenic preservation as observation of splenic injury, splenic embolization, and splenorrhaphy. We defined splenic salvage as splenic embolization and splenorrhaphy. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study examining splenic injury management of adult patients at an urban level 1 trauma center. RESULTS: During 31 months, 170 splenic injuries were captured by the trauma registry. Average age was 31.7 years, and the average Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 22.7; patients had multiple associated injuries. The average length of stay was 15.7 days, and mortality that was not associated with splenic injury was 10%. Fifty-eight patients underwent immediate splenectomy, with 3 patients requiring percutaneous drainage for pancreatic leaks and 1 patient requiring reoperation for a gastrocutaneous fistula (overall morbidity 6.9%). Eighty five patients were managed nonoperatively, with 10 patients (11.9%) failing expectant management; they underwent subsequent splenectomies. Eleven patients were managed by splenic artery embolization. Three patients (27.2%) required further intervention; 1 required re-embolization; and 2 required splenectomy. Sixteen patients underwent surgical splenorrhaphy, with 2 patients failing (12.5%), thus requiring eventual splenectomies. Morbidity for splenic preservation (observation, splenic embolization, and splenorrhaphy) was 13.4%, whereas morbidity for splenic salvage (embolization and splenorrhaphy) was 18.5%. CONCLUSIONS: In the adult population, splenic preservation has 2-fold and splenic salvage close to 3-fold morbidity compared with immediate splenectomy in management of patients with blunt and penetrating splenic injuries.

Pancreatic mass of unusual etiology: case report of metastatic disease after a prolonged lag phase.

Although not a typical site, the pancreas does occasionally harbor metastatic disease. Management of these metastases differs from the management of conventional primary cancers. Our case is one of an 85-year-old female presenting with obstructive jaundice and whose workup revealed a pancreatic mass. Her past medical history included a mastectomy 14 years previous for invasive lobular carcinoma. She underwent celiotomy, and an intraoperative diagnosis of metastatic lobular carcinoma of the breast was made based on frozen section. Due to pulmonary metastasis and vascular infiltration, which precluded pancreatoduodenectomy, the patient underwent palliative bypass and fared well postoperatively. With more aggressive management of primary breast cancers in the past decade, isolated metastatic disease is of increasing concern and raises questions about surgical strategies to be implemented with these patients. For instance, should palliative treatment be considered or should a radical intention to cure procedure be performed despite the metastatic disease? Factors favoring radical procedures include prolonged lag phase between the primary and the recurrence; presence of well-differentiated tumors; and isolated metastatic disease. Primary lung and renal cancers metastasize more frequently than breast cancers do to the pancreas. Hence, existing literature has not clearly defined indications for radical treatment of metastatic breast cancers to the pancreas. Based on experiences with metastatic renal and lung cancers, one can reasonably infer that radical procedures performed on selected cases could possibly achieve a cure or prolonged disease-free survival. The key factor in determining whether the patient undergoes palliative versus radical treatment is a slow growth pattern of the tumor, characterized by a prolonged lag phase between the primary and the metastatic disease.