An Executive Summary of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP).

ABSTRACT: The National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research (CNTR), the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients.

Loss of independence after traumatic injury: A patient-centered study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes of postdischarge functional status can provide insight into patient recovery experiences not typically reflected in trauma registries. Injuries may be characterized by a long-term loss of independence. We sought to examine factors predictive of patient-reported, postdischarge loss of independence in trauma patients. METHODS: Trauma patients admitted to 1 of 3 level I trauma centers were contacted by phone between 6 to 12 months after hospital discharge to complete the Revised Trauma Quality of Life survey. Loss of independence was defined as a new need for assistance with at least one activity of daily living or transition to living in an institutional setting. Patients with severe traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of loss of independence. RESULTS: 801 patients were included. The median age was 65 (interquartile range: 46-76) years, 46.1% were female, and the median Injury Severity Score was 9 (interquartile range: 9-13). Two hundred seventy-one patients (33.8%) experienced a loss of independence, most commonly requiring assistance walking up stairs. The main predictors of loss of independence were persistent daily pain (odds ratio: 3.83, 95% confidence interval: [2.90-5.04], P < .001), length of hospital stay (odds ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: [1.01-1.09], P = .021) and income below the national median (odds ratio: 1.46, 95% confidence interval: [1.12-1.91], P = .006). Perceived social support (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: [0.66-0.85], P < .001) was protective against loss of independence. CONCLUSION: Injury is associated with a relatively high rate of long-term loss of independence. Ensuring adequate social support systems for patients postdischarge may help them regain functional independence after injury.

Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review.

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies.

Core outcome measures for research in traumatic injury survivors: The National Trauma Research Action Plan modified Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients' long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard. METHODS: As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than 9 professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. RESULTS: The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 patient-reported outcome measures and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65% to 98% across the five Delphi rounds. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome measurement set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

Evolution of damage control surgery in non-traumatic abdominal pathology: a light in the darkness.

Damage control surgery is based on temporal control of the injury, physiologic recovery and posterior deferred definitive management. This strategy began in the 1980s and became a formal concept in 1993. It has proven to be a strategy that reduces mortality in severely injured trauma patients. Nevertheless, the concept of damage control in non-traumatic abdominal pathology remains controversial. This article aims to gather historical experiences in damage control surgery performed in non-traumatic abdominal emergency pathology patients and present a novel management algorithm. This strategy could be a surgical option to treat hemodynamically unstable patients in catastrophic scenarios such as hemorrhagic and septic shock caused by peritonitis, pancreatitis, acute mesenteric ischemia, among others. Therefore, damage control surgery is light amid better short- and long-term results.

La cirugía de control de daños es una estrategia de control temporal del daño tisular y recuperación fisiológica para un manejo definitivo diferido. Esta estrategia tiene antecedentes en el mundo del trauma desde la década de 1980, hasta su formalización conceptual en 1993. Hasta el momento ha demostrado ser una estrategia factible y que reduce la mortalidad en los pacientes críticamente enfermos. Sin embargo, el manejo de patologías abdominales no traumáticas aun es tema de discusión sobre su factibilidad y seguridad. El presente articulo tiene como objetivo realizar un relato histórico y experiencias en la aplicación de la cirugía de control de daños en emergencias quirúrgicas abdominales no asociadas a trauma y presentar un algoritmo de manejo usando los principios de la cirugía de control de daños. La aplicabilidad del control de daños en no trauma se enfrenta a los contextos de shock hemorrágico y séptico para patologías como peritonitis generalizada, peritonitis postquirúrgica, pancreatitis, isquemia mesentérica aguda, entre otras. Se ha demostrado que el uso de control de daños representa una luz para el cirujano ante la tormenta de la incertidumbre de la descompensación metabólica en el manejo de emergencias abdominales, para crear un puente para su manejo definitivo y permitir anastomosis como estrategia de reconstrucción intestinal y mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.

Evolution of damage control surgery in non-traumatic abdominal pathology: a light in the darkness / Evolución de la cirugía de control de daños en patología no traumática abdominal: un faro en medio de la tormenta

Abstract Damage control surgery is based on temporal control of the injury, physiologic recovery and posterior deferred definitive management. This strategy began in the 1980s and became a formal concept in 1993. It has proven to be a strategy that reduces mortality in severely injured trauma patients. Nevertheless, the concept of damage control in non-traumatic abdominal pathology remains controversial. This article aims to gather historical experiences in damage control surgery performed in non-traumatic abdominal emergency pathology patients and present a novel management algorithm. This strategy could be a surgical option to treat hemodynamically unstable patients in catastrophic scenarios such as hemorrhagic and septic shock caused by peritonitis, pancreatitis, acute mesenteric ischemia, among others. Therefore, damage control surgery is light amid better short- and long-term results.

Resumen La cirugía de control de daños es una estrategia de control temporal del daño tisular y recuperación fisiológica para un manejo definitivo diferido. Esta estrategia tiene antecedentes en el mundo del trauma desde la década de 1980, hasta su formalización conceptual en 1993. Hasta el momento ha demostrado ser una estrategia factible y que reduce la mortalidad en los pacientes críticamente enfermos. Sin embargo, el manejo de patologías abdominales no traumáticas aun es tema de discusión sobre su factibilidad y seguridad. El presente articulo tiene como objetivo realizar un relato histórico y experiencias en la aplicación de la cirugía de control de daños en emergencias quirúrgicas abdominales no asociadas a trauma y presentar un algoritmo de manejo usando los principios de la cirugía de control de daños. La aplicabilidad del control de daños en no trauma se enfrenta a los contextos de shock hemorrágico y séptico para patologías como peritonitis generalizada, peritonitis postquirúrgica, pancreatitis, isquemia mesentérica aguda, entre otras. Se ha demostrado que el uso de control de daños representa una luz para el cirujano ante la tormenta de la incertidumbre de la descompensación metabólica en el manejo de emergencias abdominales, para crear un puente para su manejo definitivo y permitir anastomosis como estrategia de reconstrucción intestinal y mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo.

Impact of chronic illness on functional outcomes and quality of life among injured older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma care for injured older adults is complicated by pre-existing chronic illness. We examined the association between chronic illness and post-injury function, healthcare utilization and quality of life. METHODS: Trauma patients ≥65 years with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥9 discharged from one of three level-1 trauma centers were interviewed 6-12 months post-discharge. Patients were asked about new functional limitations, injury-related emergency department (ED) visits or readmission, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Trauma registry data was used to determine presence of seven chronic illnesses. Adjusted regression models examined associations between increasing number of chronic illness (0, 1, ≥2) and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,379 patients, 46.5% had at least one chronic illness. In adjusted analysis, any chronic illness was associated with higher odds of new functional limitation (1 chronic illness, OR1.54, CI: 1.20-1.97; ≥2, OR1.69, CI: 1.16-2.48) and worse physical health-related QoL (1 chronic illness adj. mean diff= -4.0, CI: -5.6 to -2.5; ≥2 adj. mean diff.= -4.4, CI: -7.3 to -1.4, p<0.01). Mental health post-injury was consistent with population norms across all groups. CONCLUSION: Presence of any chronic illness in older adults is associated with new functional limitations and worse physical HRQoL post-injury, but unchanged mental health. Focused interventions are needed to support long-term recovery.

Patient-reported Outcomes at 6 to 12 Months Among Survivors of Firearm Injury in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Assess outcomes in survivors of firearm injuries after 6 to 12 months and compared them with a similarly injured trauma population. BACKGROUND: For every individual in the United States who died of a firearm injury in 2017, three survived, living with the burden of their injury. Current firearm research largely focuses on mortality and short-term health outcomes, while neglecting the long-term consequences. METHODS: We contacted adult patients with a moderate-to-severe injury from a firearm or motor vehicle crash (MVC) treated at 3 level I trauma centers in Boston between 2015 and 2018. Patients were contacted 6 to 12 months postinjury to measure: presence of daily pain; screening for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); new functional limitations; return to work; and physical and mental health-related quality of life. We matched each firearm injury patient to MVC patients using Coarsened Exact Matching. Adjusted Generalized Linear Models were used to compare matched patients. RESULTS: Of 177 eligible firearm injury survivors, 100 were successfully contacted and 63 completed the study. Among them, 67.7% reported daily pain, 53.2% screened positive for PTSD, 38.7% reported a new functional limitation in an activity of daily living, and 59.1% have not returned to work. Compared with population norms, overall physical and mental health-related quality of life was significantly reduced among firearm injury survivors. Compared with matched MVC survivors (n = 255), firearm injury survivors were significantly more likely to have daily pain [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-4.87], to screen positive for PTSD (adjusted OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.58), and had significantly worse physical and mental health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for targeted long-term follow-up care, physical rehabilitation, mental health screening, and interventions for survivors of firearm violence.

Implementation of a new Single-Pass Whole-Body Computed Tomography Protocol: Is it safe, effective and efficient in patients with severe trauma?

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a new single-pass whole-body computed tomography Protocol in the management of patients with severe trauma. METHODS: This was a descriptive evaluation of polytrauma patients who underwent whole-body computed tomography. Patients were divided into three groups: 1. Blunt trauma hemodynamically stable 2. Blunt trauma hemodynamically unstable and 3. Penetrating trauma. Demographics, whole-body computed tomography parameters and outcome variables were evaluated. RESULTS: Were included 263 patients. Median injury severity score was 22 (IQR: 16-22). Time between arrival to the emergency department and completing the whole-body computed tomography was under 30 minutes in most patients [Group 1: 28 minutes (IQR: 14-55), Group 2: 29 minutes (IQR: 16-57), and Group 3: 31 minutes (IQR: 13-50; p= 0.96)]. 172 patients (65.4%) underwent non-operative management. The calculated and the real survival rates did not vary among the groups either [Group 1: TRISS 86.4% vs. real survival rate 85% (p= 0.69); Group 2: TRISS 69% vs. real survival rate 74% (p= 0.25); Group 3: TRISS 93% vs. real survival rate 87% (p= 0.07)]. CONCLUSION: This new single-pass whole-body computed tomography protocol was safe, effective and efficient to decide whether the patient with severe trauma requires a surgical intervention independently of the mechanism of injury or the hemodynamic stability of the patient. Its use could also potentially reduce the rate of unnecessary surgical interventions of patients with severe trauma including those with penetrating trauma.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la implementación de un nuevo protocolo de tomografía computarizada corporal total para el manejo de pacientes con trauma severo. MÉTODOS: Este estudio es una evaluación descriptiva de pacientes que recibieron tomografía computarizada corporal total. Los pacientes fueron divididos en 3 grupos: 1. Trauma cerrado hemodinámicamente estables, 2. Trauma cerrado hemodinámicamente inestables y 3. Trauma penetrante. Se evaluaron las características demográficas, parámetros relacionados con la técnica y los desenlaces de los pacientes. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 263 pacientes. La mediana del puntaje de severidad de la lesión fue 22 (RIQ: 16-22). El tiempo entre el ingreso a urgencias y completar la tomografía corporal total fue menor a 30 minutos en la mayoría de pacientes [Grupo 1: 28 minutos (RIQ: 14-55), Grupo 2: 29 minutos (RIQ: 16-57), y Grupo 3: 31 minutos (RIQ: 13-50; p= 0.96). 172 pacientes (65.4%) recibieron manejo no operatorio. Las tasas de supervivencia calculadas y reales no difirieron entre ninguno de los grupos [Grupo 1: TRISS 86.4% vs. Tasa real de supervivencia 85% (p= 0.69); Grupo 2: TRISS 69% vs. Tasa real de supervivencia 74% (p= 0.25); Grupo 3: TRISS 93% vs. Tasa real de supervivencia 87% (p= 0.07)]. CONCLUSIÓN: Este nuevo protocolo de tomografía corporal total de un solo pase fue seguro, efectivo y eficiente para definir si los pacientes con trauma severo requieren o no una intervención quirúrgica. Su uso podría reducir la tasa de intervenciones quirúrgicas innecesarias en estos pacientes incluyendo los que se presentan con trauma penetrante.

Long-term patient-reported outcome measures after injury: National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients who survive traumatic injury continue to suffer impaired functional status and increased mortality long after discharge. However, despite the need to improve long-term outcomes, trauma registries in the USA do not collect data on outcomes or care processes after discharge. One of the main barriers is the lack of consensus regarding the optimal outcome metrics. OBJECTIVES: To describe the methodology of a scoping review evaluating current evidence on the available measures for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The aim of the review was to identify and summarize measures that are being used to track long-term functional recovery and patient-reported outcomes among adults after injury. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase will be performed using the search terms for the population (adult trauma patients), type of outcomes (long-term physical, mental, cognitive, and quality of life), and measures available to track them. Studies identified will be reviewed and assessed for relevance by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. This protocol is being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will provide information regarding the currently available metrics for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The review will be presented to a multi-disciplinary stakeholder group that will evaluate these outcome metrics using an online Delphi approach to achieve consensus as part of the development of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP). The results of this review will be presented at relevant national surgical conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Chest Trauma Outcomes: Public Versus Private Level I Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND: The goal of our study was to evaluate the differences in care and clinical outcomes of patients with chest trauma between two hospitals, including one public trauma center (Pu-TC) and one private trauma center (Pri-TC). METHODS: Patients with thoracic trauma admitted from January 2012 to December 2018 at two level I trauma centers (Pu-TC: Hospital Universitario del Valle, Pri-TC: Fundación Valle del Lili) in Cali, Colombia, were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for differences in in-hospital mortality, adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 482 patients were identified; 300 (62.2%) at the Pri-TC and 182 (37.8%) at the Pu-TC. Median age was 27 years (IQR 21-36) and median Injury Severity Score was 25 (IQR 16-26). 456 patients (94.6%) were male, and the majority had penetrating trauma [total 465 (96.5%); Pri-TC 287 (95.7%), Pu-TC 179 (98.4%), p 0.08]. All patients arrived at the emergency room with unstable hemodynamics. There were no statistically significant differences in post-operative complications, including retained hemothorax [Pri-TC 19 vs. Pu-TC 18], pneumonia [Pri-TC 14 vs. Pu-TC 14], empyema [Pri-TC 13 vs. Pu-TC 13] and mediastinitis [Pri-TC 6 vs. Pu-TC 2]. Logistic regression did, however, show a higher odds of mortality when patients were treated at the Pu-TC [OR 2.27 (95% CI 1.34-3.87, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found significant statistical differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated at a Pu-TC and Pri-TC. The results are intended to stimulate discussions to better understand reasons for outcome variability and ways to reduce it.

The Challenge of Implementing the "Stop the Bleed" Campaign in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several initiatives have emerged to empower the public to act as immediate responders in front of hemorrhaging victims. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Stop the Bleed campaign and the association between the instructors' background and the theoretical and practical competences achieved by the participants in Latin America. METHODS: Medical students and general surgeons taught both allied health students and nonallied health students at a local university; the training had a master class followed by a practical component and a written test, as well as tourniquet placement was tested. RESULTS: 265 individuals received the training, and data were available for 243. Of these, 126 (52.07%) were women and the median age was 21 (IQR: 20-22) years. 121 (49.79%) were trained by general surgeons (group A) and 122 (50.21%) by medical students (group B). After the training, more than 98% of all participants perceived that they would most likely be capable of aiding correctly a bleeding victim by applying direct pressure and more than 90% of them felt confident in being able to apply a tourniquet. There were no statistically significant differences among both groups when comparing their post-training competence evaluations [Theoretical test score: group A = 5 (IQR: 4-5); group B = 5 (IQR: 4-5); P = 0.41] and [Practical competency of tourniquet deployment: group A = 119 (66.39%) versus group B = 120 (65.83%); P = 0.93]. CONCLUSIONS: The Stop the Bleed campaign can be effectively implemented in Latin America, and it can be taught by prequalified medical students without altering the learning objectives of the course.

Development and validation of a revised trauma-specific quality of life instrument.

BACKGROUND: The National Academies of Science has called for routine collection of long-term outcomes after injury. One of the main barriers for this is the lack of practical trauma-specific tools to collect such outcomes. The only trauma-specific long-term outcomes measure that applies a biopsychosocial view of patient care, the Trauma Quality-of-Life (T-QoL), has not been adopted because of its length, lack of composite scores, and unknown validity. Our objective was to develop a shorter version of the T-QoL measure that is reliable, valid, specific, and generalizable to all trauma populations. METHODS: We used two random samples selected from a prospective registry developed to follow long-term outcomes of adult trauma survivors (Injury Severity Score ≥9) admitted to three level I trauma centers. First, we validated the original T-QoL instrument using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) version 2.0 and Breslau post-traumatic stress disorder screening (B-PTSD) tools. Second, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to reduce the length of the original T-QoL instrument, and using a different sample, we scored and performed internal consistency and validity assessments of the revised T-QoL (RT-QoL) components. RESULTS: All components of the original T-QoL were significantly correlated negatively with the B-PTSD and positively with the SF-12 mental and physical composite scores. After confirmatory factor analysis, a three-component structure using 18 items (six items/component) most appropriately represented the data. Each component in the revised instrument demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥0.8) and correlated negatively with the B-PTSD and positively with the SF-12, demonstrating concurrent validity. In addition, each of the RT-QoL components was able to distinguish between individuals based on their work status, with those who have returned to work reporting better health. CONCLUSION: This more practical RT-QoL measure greatly increases the ability to evaluate long-term outcomes in trauma more efficiently and meaningfully, without sacrificing the validity and psychometric properties of the original instrument. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

La laparotomía de control de daños en pacientes sin trauma reduce el número de ostomías / Damage control laparotomy in non-trauma patients reduces the number of ostomies

Introducción. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si la laparotomía de control de daños con ligadura y reconstrucción intestinal diferida, en pacientes con peritonitis secundaria a compromiso de víscera hueca, reduce el número de ostomías. Métodos. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes menores de 18 años de edad que ingresaron a la clínica con sospecha de peritonitis de origen no traumático y que se sometieron a laparotomía entre enero del 2003 y diciembre del 2018. Se evaluaron las características sociodemográficas, comorbilidades, escalas de gravedad fisiológica, técnicas de reconstrucción intestinal y resultados clínicos. Resultados. Se incluyeron 306 pacientes, distribuidos en tres grupos: 1) 120 (39,2 %) sometidos a resección y anastomosis, 2) 87 (28,4 %) sometidos a ostomía, y 3) 99 (32,3 %) sometidos inicialmente a ligadura intestinal. Los pacientes sometidos a ligadura intestinal presentaron mayor compromiso fisiológico al ingreso a la unidad de cuidado intensivo, con puntuación APACHE II: 14 (rango intercuartílico, RIC=10-18) en el grupo 1, 13 (RIC=11-18) en el grupo 2, y 18 (RIC=14-24) en el grupo 3 (p<0,01). Sin embargo, más de la mitad se reconstruyeron en la siguiente laparotomía: anastomosis mecánica (16/99; 16,1 %), anastomosis manual (49/99; 49,5 %), ostomía (34/99; 34,3 %). Además, estos pacientes sometidos a ligadura intestinal tuvieron un número significativamente mayor de nuevas laparotomías, y de días de asistencia respiratoria mecánica, de estancia en la unidad de cuidado intensivo y de estancia hospitalaria. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la mortalidad entre los subgrupos: (grupo 1=19 (15,8 %), grupo 2=16 (18,4 %), grupo 3=19 (19,2 %) (p=0,79). Conclusión. En este estudio, se logró evitar la ostomía como técnica de reconstrucción definitiva en más de la mitad de los pacientes con peritonitis que se sometieron a laparotomía de control de daños con ligadura intestinal

Introduction. The objective of this study was to evaluate if the damage control laparotomy with ligation and delayed intestinal reconstruction (DR), in patients with peritonitis secondary to compromised hollow viscera, reduces the number of ostomies.Methods. All patients under 18 years of age who entered the clinic with suspected non-traumatic peritonitis and who underwent laparotomy between January 2003 and December 2018 were included. Sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, severity scales physiological, intestinal reconstruction techniques and clinical results were evaluated.Results. A total of 306 patients were included, divided into three groups: 1) 120 (39.2 %) underwent resection and anastomosis, 2) 87 (28.4 %) underwent ostomy, and 3) 99 (32.3 %) underwent initial to intestinal ligation. Patients undergoing intestinal ligation presented greater physiological compromise upon admission to the intensive care unit, with an APACHE II score: 14 (interquartile range, IQR= 10-18) in group 1, 13 (IQR = 11-18) in the group 2, and 18 (IQR = 14-24) in group 3 (p<0.01). However, more than half were reconstructed in the following laparotomy: mechanical anastomosis (16/99; 16.1 %), manual anastomosis (49/99; 49.5 %), ostomy (34/99; 34.3 %). Also, they had a significantly greater number of new laparotomies, and of days of mechanical respiratory assistance, of stay in the intensive care unit and of hospital stay. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality between the subgroups: group 1= 19 (15.8 %), group 2= 16 (18.4 %), group 3= 19 (19.2 %) (p= 0.79). Conclusion. In this study, it was possible to avoid the ostomy as the definitive reconstruction technique in more than half of the patients with peritonitis who underwent damage control laparotomy with intestinal ligation

Association of pain after trauma with long-term functional and mental health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain after trauma is associated with serious clinical, social, and economic burden. Due to limitations in trauma registry data and previous studies, the current prevalence of chronic pain after trauma is unknown, and little is known about the association of pain with other long-term outcomes. We sought to describe the long-term burden of self-reported pain after injury and to determine its association with positive screen for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), functional status, and return to work. METHODS: Trauma survivors with moderate or severe injuries and one completed follow-up interview at either 6 months or 12 months after injury were identified from the Functional Outcomes and Recovery after Trauma Emergencies project. Multivariable logistic regression models clustered by facility and adjusting for confounders were used to obtain the odds of positive PTSD screening, not returning to work, and functional limitation at 6 months and 12 months after injury, in trauma patients who reported to have pain on a daily basis compared to those who did not. RESULTS: We completed interviews on 650 patients (43% of eligible patients). Half of patients (50%) reported experiencing pain daily, and 23% reported taking pain medications daily between 6 months and 12 months after injury. Compared to patients without pain, patients with pain were more likely to screen positive for PTSD (odds ratio [OR], 5.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.97-8.85), have functional limitations for at least one daily activity (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.38-4.26]), and not return to work (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.02-3.39). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant amount of self-reported chronic pain after trauma, which is in turn associated with positive screen for PTSD, functional limitations, and delayed return to work. New metrics for measuring successful care of the trauma patient are needed that span beyond mortality, and it is important we shift our focus beyond the trauma center and toward improving the long-term morbidity of trauma survivors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care management, level III.

Could resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta improve survival among severely injured patients with post-intubation hypotension?

Current literature shows the association of post-intubation hypotension and increased odds of mortality in critically ill non-trauma and trauma populations. However, there is a lack of research on potential interventions that can prevent or ameliorate the consequences of endotracheal intubation and thus improve the prognosis of trauma patients with post-intubation hypotension. This review paper hypothesizes that the deployment of REBOA among trauma patients with PIH, by its physiologic effects, will reduce the odds of mortality in this population. The objective of this paper is to review the current literature on REBOA and post-intubation hypotension, and, furthermore, to provide a rational hypothesis on the potential role of REBOA in severely injured patients with post-intubation hypotension.

The "mortality ascent": Hourly risk of death for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients at Level II versus Level I trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Severely injured trauma patients have higher in-hospital mortality at Level II versus Level I trauma centers (TCs). To better understand these differences, we sought to determine if there were any periods during which hemodynamically unstable trauma patients are at higher risk of death at Level II versus Level I TCs within the first 24 hours postadmission. STUDY DESIGN: Trauma patients aged 18 years to 64 years, with Injury Severity Score of 15 or greater, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at admission, and treated at Level II or Level I TCs, were identified using the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. Burn patients, transfers, and patients dead on arrival were excluded. Log-binomial regression models, adjusted for patient- and hospital-level confounders, were used to compare mortality at Level II versus Level I TCs over the first 24 hours postadmission. RESULTS: Of 13,846 hemodynamically unstable patients, 4,212 (30.4%) were treated at 149 Level II TCs, and 9,634 (69.6%) at 116 Level I TCs. Within the first 24 hours, 3,059 (22.1%) patients died. In risk-adjusted models, mortality risk was significantly elevated at Level II versus Level I TCs during the 24 hours postadmission (relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.16). Hourly mortality risk was significantly different between Level II and Level I TCs during 4 hours to 7 hours postadmission, with a maximal difference at 7 hours (relative risk, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36) and comparable mortality risk beyond 7 hours postadmission. CONCLUSION: The 4-hour to 7-hour time window postadmission is critical for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. Variations in available treatment modalities may account for higher relative mortality at Level II TCs during this time. Further investigation to elucidate specific risk factors for mortality during this period may lead to reductions in in-hospital mortality among hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Prospective quality of life assessment after hip and knee arthroplasty: short- and mid-term follow-up results.

BACKGROUND: Hip and knee arthroplasty aims to restore the joint function and to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with articular damage. It is important to quantify the HRQoL improvement and when this is achieved. The Oxford knee score and the Oxford hip score were developed to evaluate patients after knee and hip arthroplasty. We sought to evaluate HRQoL changes in the short and mid term following either primary or revision hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Prospective cohort study during a 20-month period (August 2013 to March 2015) in a tertiary referral hospital. Primary arthroplasties secondary to osteoarthritis and any-cause revisions were included (328, 160 knees, and 88 hips). They were divided into 4 groups: (1) primary knee replacement, (2) primary hip replacement, (3) revision knee replacement, and (4) revision hip replacement. Oxford knee and hip scores were obtained prior the surgery and compared with the short- and mid-term follow-up scores. RESULTS: Follow-up in the short term and mid term was: 75.6% and 67.4%, respectively. Improvement was found in both short-term and mid-term follow-up for each group and for the overall group in HRQoL as measured by the Oxford knee and hip scores (P < .001). The greatest improvement was seen in the short term with an increase of 21 points for primary knee arthroplasty; 24 points for primary hip arthroplasty; 22 points for revision knee arthroplasty; and 23 points for revision hip arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in HRQoL in patients following primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty is crucial and can be achieved early after the surgery.