Early management of severe pelvic injury (first 24 hours).

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic fractures represent 5% of all traumatic fractures and 30% are isolated pelvic fractures. Pelvic fractures are found in 10 to 20% of severe trauma patients and their presence is highly correlated to increasing trauma severity scores. The high mortality of pelvic trauma, about 8 to 15%, is related to actively bleeding pelvic injuries and/or associated injuries to the head, abdomen or chest. Regardless of the severity of pelvic trauma, diagnosis and treatment must proceed according to a strategy that does not delay the management of the most severely injured patients. To date, in France, there are no guidelines issued by healthcare authorities or professional societies that address this subject. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 22 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation; SFAR) and the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence; SFMU) in collaboration with the French Society of Radiology (Société Française de Radiologie; SFR), French Defence Health Service (Service de Santé des Armées; SSA), French Society of Urology (Association Française d'Urologie; AFU), the French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique; SOCFCOT), and the French Society of Digestive Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie digestive; SFCD) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently from any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. METHODS: Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provided 22 statements on prehospital and hospital management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture. After three rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of recommendations. Of these recommendations, 11 have a high level of evidence (Grade 1 ± ), 11 have a low level of evidence (Grade 2 ± ). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture.

Strategic proposal for a national trauma system in France.

In this road map for trauma in France, we focus on the main challenges for system implementation, surgical and radiology training and upon innovative training techniques. Regarding system organisation: procedures for triage, designation and certification of trauma centres are mandatory to implement trauma networks on a national scale. Data collection with registries must be created, with a core dataset defined and applied through all registries. Regarding surgical and radiology training, diagnostic-imaging processes should be standardised and the role of the interventional radiologist within the trauma team and the trauma network should be clearly defined. Education in surgery for trauma is crucial and recent changes in medical training in France will promote trauma surgery as a specific sub-specialty. Innovative training techniques should be implemented and be based on common objectives, scenarios and evaluation, so as to improve individual and team performances. The group formulated 14 proposals that should help to structure and improve major trauma management in France over the next 10 years.

Use of water-soluble contrast medium (gastrografin) does not decrease the need for operative intervention nor the duration of hospital stay in uncomplicated acute adhesive small bowel obstruction? A multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction Study) and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association between oral gastrografin administration and the need for operative intervention in patients with presumed adhesive small bowel obstruction. METHODS: Between October 2006 and August 2009, 242 patients with uncomplicated acute adhesive small bowel obstruction were included in a randomized, controlled trial (the Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction Study, NCT00389116) and allocated to a gastrografin arm or a saline solution arm. The primary end point was the need for operative intervention within 48 hours of randomization. The secondary end points were the resection rate, the time interval between the initial computed tomography and operative intervention, the time interval between oral refeeding and discharge, risk factors for the failure of nonoperative management, in-hospital mortality, duration of stay, and recurrence or death after discharge. We performed a systematic review of the literature in order to evaluate the relationship between use of gastrografin as a diagnostic/therapeutic measure, the need for operative intervention, and the duration of stay. RESULTS: In the gastrografin and saline solution arms, the rate of operative intervention was 24% and 20%, respectively, the bowel resection rate was 8% and 4%, the time interval between the initial computed tomography and operative intervention, and the time interval between oral refeeding and discharge were similar in the 2 arms. Only age was identified as a potential risk factor for the failure of nonoperative management. The in-hospital mortality was 2.5%, the duration of stay was 3.8 days for patients in the gastrografin arm and 3.5 days for those in the saline solution arm (P = .19), and the recurrence rate of adhesive small bowel obstruction was 7%. These results and those of 10 published studies suggest that gastrografin did not decrease either the rate of operative intervention (21% in the saline solution arm vs 26% in the gastrografin arm) or the number of days from the initial computed tomography to discharge (3.5 vs 3.5; P = NS for both). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study and those of our systematic review suggest that gastrografin administration is of no benefit in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction.