Necrotizing fasciitis due to penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: case report and review of the literature.

Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a life-threatening infection involving rapid necrosis of subcutaneous and fascial tissues. Streptococcus pneumoniae (SPN) soft tissue infection is exceedingly uncommon, reported primarily in patients with immunosuppression or other underlying conditions. We report a case of NF and septic shock in a healthy 32-year-old man, whose only predisposing factor was antecedent blunt trauma. Pathological examination and culture of the extensive tissue debridement were positive only for SPN. The serotype 9V isolate was penicillin (PCN)-resistant (MIC=2.0), and closely-related by pulse field gel electrophoresis and multilocus fingerprinting to clone France 9V-3, an important genetic reservoir for increasing PCN-resistance worldwide. This unique case has implications for our pathogenic under-standing and empiric management of NF.

Determining which patients require evaluation for blunt cardiac injury following blunt chest trauma.

The objective of this study was to determine prospectively which risk factors require cardiac monitoring for blunt cardiac injury (BCI) following blunt chest trauma. All patients who sustained blunt chest trauma had an electrocardiogram (ECG) on admission to our urban level I trauma center. Those with ST segment changes, dysrhythmias, hemodynamic instability, history of cardiac disease, age > 55 years, or a need for general anesthesia within 24 hours (group 1) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for 24 hours where they were subjected to serial ECGs, creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) assays, and echocardiography (ECHO). Those with only mechanism for BCI, i.e., none of the above risk factors (group 2), were admitted to a nonmonitored bed and had a follow-up ECG 24 hours later. A series of 315 patients were admitted with blunt chest trauma during a 17-month period; 144 patients were in group 1 and 171 in group 2. Overall, 22 patients were diagnosed as BCI (+BCI), defined as evolving ST segment changes, dysrhythmias, a CPK-MB index of > 2.5, or hemodynamic instability. Of the 18 +BCI patients in group 1, all were symptomatic (i.e., none was included solely for a cardiac history, age, or need for general anesthesia). Six of these patients required treatment for dysrhythmias, hypotension, or pulmonary edema; one of whom died. Four patients with +BCI were in group 2 and had ECG changes at 24 hours; none of these four had any sequelae from their +BCI. None of the ECHOs demonstrated abnormal wall motion. Patients who sustain blunt chest trauma with a normal ECG, normal blood pressure, and no dysrhythmias on admission require no further intervention for BCI. Patients with ST segment changes, dysrhythmias, or hypotension following blunt chest trauma should be monitored for 24 hours, as this subgroup occasionally requires further treatment for complications of BCI. ECHO adds nothing as a screening test.

The utility of head computed tomography after minimal head injury.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients who present with a history of loss of consciousness who are neurologically intact (minimal head injury) should be managed with head computed tomography (CT), observation, or both. METHODS: We prospectively studied patients who presented to our urban Level I trauma center with a history of loss of consciousness after blunt trauma and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. All patients underwent CT of the head and were subsequently admitted for 24 hours of observation. RESULTS: A total of 1,170 patients with minimal head injury were studied during a 35-month period. All patients had Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 15 on arrival and had a history of either loss of consciousness or amnesia to the event. Two hundred forty-seven patients (21.1%) were intoxicated with drugs or alcohol on admission; 39 patients (3.3%) had abnormalities detected by CT, including 18 intracranial bleeds; 21 patients (1.8%) had changes in therapy as a direct result of their CT results, including 4 operative procedures. No patient with negative CT results deteriorated during the subsequent observation period. CONCLUSION: CT is a useful test in patients with minimal head injury because it may lead to a change in therapy in a small but significant number of patients. Subsequent hospital observation adds nothing to the CT results and is not necessary in patients with isolated minimal head injury.

Routine preoperative "one-shot" intravenous pyelography is not indicated in all patients with penetrating abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: To determine which patients need a "one-shot" intravenous pyelogram (IVP) before laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma. STUDY DESIGN: Over a 15-month period, 240 laparotomies were performed for penetrating trauma at our urban level I trauma center. Prospectively collected data included clinical suspicion of genitourinary injury, results of preoperative IVP, intraoperative findings, and operative decisions influenced by the IVP. RESULTS: Preoperative IVP was performed in 175 patients (73%). Of these, 71 (41%) had suspicion of a renal injury based on the presence of a flank wound or gross hematuria. The IVP was believed to influence operative decisions in six patients, all in this group. Each of these six patients had either a shattered kidney or a renovascular injury and had a nephrectomy performed with the knowledge that a normal functioning kidney was present on the contralateral side. No patient without a flank wound or gross hematuria had an IVP that was judged to be helpful intraoperatively. Preoperative IVP was helpful only in patients with flank wounds or gross hematuria. Nephrectomy was performed in two additional patients who did not undergo IVP, both of whom presented in shock. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative IVP is not necessary in all patients undergoing laparotomy for penetrating trauma. The number of IVPs can be safely reduced by 60% if the indications are narrowed to include only those stable patients with a flank wound or gross hematuria.

A method of determining peritoneal penetration in gunshot wounds to the abdomen.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that 98% of gunshot wounds that penetrate the peritoneal cavity cause injuries that require surgical repair. Many gunshot wounds in the vicinity of the abdomen (GSWA) may actually be tangential and not penetrate the peritoneal cavity at all. Patients with such wounds may not require laparotomy. It is important to determine which patients with a potential tangential GSWA actually have penetration of the peritoneal cavity to minimize negative laparotomies. This study was undertaken to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) in the determination of peritoneal penetration for patients who sustain GSWA. METHODS: DPL was performed for all patients who had sustained a GSWA in whom peritoneal penetration was unclear, i.e., patients whose GSWA appeared to be tangential, thoracoabdominal, or transpelvic and for whom a clear indication for laparotomy (shock, peritonitis, etc.) did not exist. Our threshold for a positive DPL was 10,000 red blood cells (RBC)/mm3. A prospective data base was kept with information on the location of the wound, DPL result, findings at laparotomy, and outcome. RESULTS: During a 4-year period, 429 consecutive DPLs were performed for GSWA at our urban Level I trauma center. One hundred fifty DPLs were positive, with more than 10,000 RBC/mm3. Six of these patients were found to have no peritoneal penetration at laparotomy (false-positive). The remaining 144 patients with positive DPLs were found to have operative injuries (true-positive). Of the 279 patients with DPL counts less than 10,000 RBC/mm3, 2 developed indications for laparotomy and were found to have intraperitoneal injuries (false-negative). The remaining 277 patients had no peritoneal injuries (true-negative). This was demonstrated either by laparotomy done for another indication (n = 7) or by uneventful inpatient observation for 24 hours (n = 270). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DPL in determining peritoneal penetration in GSWA is therefore 99, 98, and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: For patients who sustain GSWA for whom peritoneal penetration is unclear, DPL is a sensitive, specific, and accurate test to determine the need for laparotomy. It remains our test of choice when confronted with these patients.

Experience with three prosthetic materials in temporary abdominal wall closure.

There are circumstances that make abdominal wall closure unsafe and technically impossible after laparotomy for trauma. In these difficult cases, prosthetic materials may be necessary to temporarily close the abdominal wall. To determine the optimal prosthetic in these instances, a retrospective chart review was conducted in our urban Level I trauma center. Twenty-five patients received 31 abdominal wall prostheses over a 4-year period. There were 7, 8, and 10 patients with 7 Marlex, 9 Dexon, and 15 Goretex prostheses, respectively. Each patient had only one type of prosthesis placed. The average age was 30.7 +/- 12.0 years, injury severity score was 20.3 +/- 7.4, and abdominal trauma index was 35.9 +/- 18.0; there was no significant difference in these values between groups. Eight patients died soon after the prosthesis was placed (average, 12.9 days) secondary to ongoing shock or multiple organ failure. Three of the seven surviving Goretex patients (43%) were intentionally left with small hernias. Three of the six Dexon patients (50%) were left with hernias; one of these eviscerated on day 150 and subsequently died, and the others have disabling gigantic hernias. Three of the four Marlex patients (75%) developed fistulae as a result of erosion into the small bowel or colon. One Marlex patient suffered with a chronically draining abdominal wound for 398 days prior to definitive closure. Goretex appears to be the best prosthetic for temporary abdominal wall closure because it causes less inflammatory reaction because of its smooth surface. It is therefore easier to retrieve at the time of definitive closure and carries less risk of fistula formation than other prostheses. Our Dexon patients suffered with gigantic hernias and one died because of complications of evisceration. We have abandoned the use of Marlex in abdominal wall closure because of the high incidence of fistula formation. We advocate the use of Goretex in temporary abdominal wall closure in this challenging group of patients.

Burn injuries in firefighters.

The authors cover the care of burn injuries from start to finish, beginning with a discussion of immediate intervention and concluding with a look at psychosocial aspects of burns. Topics in the middle include early management, evaluation of the patient and classification of the burn's severity, burn resuscitation, the pathophysiology of smoke inhalation, dressing of burn wounds, escharotomies and fasciotomies, surgical management, and rehabilitation.

Aspiration of free blood from the peritoneal cavity does not mandate immediate laparotomy.

The objective was to establish the relationship between the aspiration of free blood (+ASP) versus diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), abdominal injury severity, hemodynamic instability, and the need for immediate operative intervention. We prospectively compared the significance of +ASP to +DPL in our level I trauma center. Consecutive patients received sequential needle tap, catheter aspiration (ASP), and DPL. If gross blood was withdrawn during the tap or ASP, it was returned to the peritoneal cavity before completing the DPL. The DPL was considered positive if there were > 100,000 RBCs for blunt injuries or anterior abdominal stab wounds, or > 10,000 RBCs for other penetrating injuries. During a 12-month period, 566 patients fulfilled the study criteria; they were 50 per cent blunt and 50 per cent penetrating trauma. There were 70 patients with both +ASP/+DPL, 30 with -ASP/+DPL and 4 with +ASP but -DPL. Exploratory laparotomy was performed on these 104 patients (18.4%), 22 of which were considered nontherapeutic. The ATI was statistically higher in the +ASP patients (14.9 +/- 12.9 versus 8.5 +/- 8.2, P < 0.05) but was not clinically different. Overall injury severity and hemodynamic stability were not different in the two groups. The sensitivity of DPL at detecting intra-abdominal injury was higher than the ASP group (98% versus 72%), but the specificities were equal (98%). Because +ASP patients are not more critically injured or unstable than +DPL patients, and because DPL is more accurate in detecting the need for operative intervention, aspiration should be abandoned as part of the DPL procedure in patients with abdominal trauma.