HIPEC as a risk factor for postoperative coagulopathy after cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastases.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Postoperative coagulopathy is a poorly investigated condition after Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC). This study aims to evaluate the occurrence and risk factors of coagulative disorders after surgery for peritoneal metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records were extracted from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who underwent CRS between January 2018 and September 2020. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee. For each patient, the coagulation profile (CP), which included international normalized ratio (INR), partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and platelets (PLTS) before surgery, intensive care unit admission,1st, 3rd, 5th postoperative day (POD) and the day before discharge was collected. Risk factors for postoperative coagulopathy were identified at multivariate analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 125 patients were included in the study. Among these, 48 (38.4%) underwent CRS only, and 77 (61.6%) CRS followed by HIPEC. Twenty-one patients (16.8%) developed severe coagulopathy, 5 (10.4%) after CRS and 16 (20.8%) after CRS-HIPEC. At multivariate analysis, HIPEC and blood loss ≥ 500 ml represented independent risk factors for severe alteration of INR > 1.5 (p = 0.05, OR 1.2) and PLTS < 75 109/L (p = 0.03, OR 1.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: HIPEC is an independent risk factor for postoperative coagulopathy after CRS. Further studies are necessary to assess the usefulness of the point-of-care test in patients treated with CRS-HIPEC.

Operative and nonoperative management for renal trauma: comparison of outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Preservation of kidney and renal function is the goal of nonoperative management (NOM) of renal trauma (RT). The advantages of NOM for minor blunt RT have already been clearly described, but its value for major blunt and penetrating RT is still under debate. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis on NOM for RT, which was compared with the operative management (OM) with respect to mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was followed for this study. A systematic search was performed on Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed for studies published up to December 2015, without language restrictions, which compared NOM versus OM for renal injuries. RESULTS: Twenty nonrandomized retrospective cohort studies comprising 13,824 patients with blunt (2,998) or penetrating (10,826) RT were identified. When all RT were considered (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades 1-5), NOM was associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to OM (8.3% vs 17.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.471; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.404-0.548; P<0.001 and 2% vs 53.3%, OR 0.0484; 95% CI 0.0279-0.0839, P<0.001). Likewise, NOM represented the gold standard treatment resulting in a lower mortality rate compared to OM even when only high-grade RT was considered (9.1% vs 17.9%, OR 0.332; 95% CI 0.155-0.708; P=0.004), be they blunt (4.1% vs 8.1%, OR 0.275; 95% CI 0.0957-0.788; P=0.016) or penetrating (9.1% vs 18.1%, OR 0.468; 95% CI 0.398-0.0552; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that NOM for RT is the treatment of choice not only for AAST grades 1 and 2, but also for higher grade blunt and penetrating RT.

Nonoperative management for major blunt hepatic trauma. A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past 20 years the management of blunt liver trauma has evolved from a primary operative approach to a nonoperative one, for both low and high grade injuries, only on the basis of hemodynamic stability. However, in spite of a high success rate of non operative management, it is frequently observed, also in our country, an old fashioned way to approach these patients, based on habit more than observation and evidence based medicine. CASE REPORT: We present a case of successful nonoperative treatment of a grade IV blunt liver trauma (lacero-contusive injury of V, VI and VII segments) in a 34-year-old woman. DISCUSSION: Nowadays more than 85% of liver injuries are managed without operative intervention, irrespective of the injury grade. Success rate of the conservative approach ranges from 82% to 100% and almost all complications (14% in high grade injuries) can be managed with interventional radiology procedures, still avoiding major surgery. CONCLUSION: Today, in the absence of other abdominal injuries requiring surgical exploration, hemodynamic instability from ongoing hemorrhage after primary evaluation and resuscitative treatment, is the only indication to an operative management of traumatic liver injuries.