Integrating Endovascular and Operative Intervention in Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of utilization of the hybrid operating room (hybrid-OR) in trauma have not been described. The aim of this study was to describe the sequencing and integration of endovascular and operative interventions in trauma using a hybrid-OR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of trauma patients who underwent both endovascular and operative intervention (2013-2019). Patients were separated into four groups based on procedure patterns: concomitant-linked (C-L), concomitant-independent, serial-linked (S-L) and serial-independent (S-I). The groups were defined as follows: C-L - related endovascular and operative interventions in the same OR; concomitant-independent - unrelated interventions in the same OR; S-L - related interventions in separate ORs; S-I - unrelated interventions in separate ORs. Patient characteristics, procedures performed and time to angiography in each group were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 202 patients, most procedures utilizing the hybrid-OR were for hemorrhage control (84.1%) and were performed in a C-L manner (36.1%). Patients in the C-L group were most likely to undergo lower extremity revascularization and received the most transfusions. Patients in the S-L and S-I groups were more severely injured, had greater severe abdominal injury and were more likely to undergo damage control surgery and solid organ interventions, respectively. The C-L group had the highest percentage of patients to undergo angiography within 12 h (77%, P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: The hybrid-OR is an ideal space for hemorrhage control in trauma, but there is room for improvement in the triage of patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage. Current practice patterns prioritize the hybrid-OR for management of lower extremity injury and are not optimal. Use of the hybrid-OR could be improved by concomitant management of patients with severe abdominal injury requiring damage control surgery.

Safety and efficacy of radial access in trauma in 65 trauma endovascular cases.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular techniques in trauma surgery are becoming increasingly important in patient management, with procedures such as pelvic and splenic angioembolization becoming the standard of care for certain injuries. Traditionally, such interventions are performed via femoral access, although the morbidity of this approach is not insignificant (3%-10%). Transradial access (TRA) is an attractive alternative, pioneered by cardiologists, with low rates of access site complications in patients undergoing coronary intervention. Recently, this technology has extended to other interventions. The aim of this study was to present the initial experience of a radial program in a busy trauma center, with specific regard to safety and complications. METHODS: The medical records of trauma patients undergoing endovascular procedures via TRA between March 2018 and December 2018 were queried for procedural and postoperative data. Demography and injury characteristics were presented for the overall cohort, followed by a comparison of procedural data and complications between laterality. Continuous variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical variables were compared using a χ2 test. RESULTS: Over a 9-month period, 65 patients underwent 81 interventions via TRA, most commonly solid organ or pelvic angiography/embolization. Radial artery access was achieved in all patients, with procedural success achieved in all but two patients (n = 63 [96.9%]) who had hypoplastic radial artery anatomy, who underwent ulnar access. The overall technique-related complication rate was 1.5% with no difference observed between laterality (n = 1; P = .523). One patient with an admission Glasgow Coma Score of 3 and coagulopathy developed radial artery thrombosis after pelvic angiography via right TRA. Mortality was seen in seven patients (10.8%) owing to hemorrhagic shock (n = 3 [42.8%]) or multiorgan failure (n = 4 [57.1%]). There were no cases of postprocedural access site bleeding, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, vascular injury, intraoperative arrhythmia or cerebrovascular accident, arteriovenous fistula formation, or infection. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is a feasible and low-risk alternative for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient. It yields good technical success with low morbidity. Although larger studies are needed to establish the full efficacy of TRA at the multi-institutional level, this single-institution study demonstrates the legitimacy of an alternative means for endovascular intervention in the trauma patient.

A Comparison of Transradial and Transfemoral Access for Splenic Angio-Embolisation in Trauma: A Single Centre Experience.

OBJECTIVE: The study compared transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) for splenic angio-embolisation (SAE), with a focus on technical success, intra-operative adjuncts, and complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study of all trauma patients undergoing SAE by TRA or TFA between February 2015 and February 2019 at a single institution. The medical records were queried for procedural and post-operative data, with comparisons made based on access site. Continuous variables were compared using a two tailed t test and categorical variables were compared using a chi square test. RESULTS: Over a four year period, there were 47 cases of SAE via TRA and 127 via TFA. Technical success was 95.7% during TRA and 98.4% during TFA (p = .30). Technical failures were a result of failed splenic artery cannulation after successful radial or femoral access. Time to splenic cannulation was shorter in the TRA group (19 min vs. 30 min; p = .008). Two or fewer catheters were used during TRA, whereas more than two catheters were needed during TFA (p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in procedure length, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, or contrast volume between groups. Nine patients (5.2%) developed access related complications, all in the TFA group (p = .12). Mortality rate was 2.3% (n = 4), with no statistical significance between groups (p = .71). CONCLUSION: While TFA is the conventional strategy for SAE, TRA is a safe and efficacious modality for SAE in trauma patients. Although larger studies are needed to establish the full efficacy of TRA for SAE at the multi-institutional level, this single centre study demonstrates the legitimacy of an alternative means for SAE in the trauma population.

Dichotomy in Fasciotomy: Practice Patterns Among Trauma/Acute Care Surgeons With Performing Fasciotomy With Peripheral Arterial Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Failure to perform adequate fasciotomy for a presumed or diagnosed compartment syndrome after revascularization of an acutely ischemic limb is a potential cause of preventable limb loss. When required, outcomes are best when fasciotomy is conducted with the initial vascular repair. Despite over 100 years of experience with fasciotomy, the actual indications for its performance among acute care and trauma surgeons performing vascular repairs are unclear. The hypothesis of this study was that there are many principles of fasciotomy that are uniformly accepted by surgeons and that consensus guidelines could be developed. METHODS: A 20-question survey on fasciotomy practice patterns was distributed to trauma and acute care surgeons of a major surgical society which had approved distribution. RESULTS: The response to the survey was 160/1066 (15 %). 92.5% of respondents were fellowship trained in trauma and acute care surgery, and 74.9% had been in practice for fewer than 10 years. Most respondents (71.9%) stated that they would be influenced to perform a preliminary fasciotomy (fasciotomy conducted prior to planned exploration and arterial repair) based upon specific signs and symptoms consistent with compartment syndrome-including massive swelling (55.6%), elevated compartment pressures (52.5%), delay in transfer >6 hours (47.5%), or obvious distal ischemia (33.1%). 20.6% responded that they would conduct exploration and repair first, regardless of these considerations. Prophylactic fasciotomies (fasciotomy without overt signs of compartment syndrome) would be performed by respondents in the setting of the tense compartment (87.5%), ischemic time >6 hours (88.1%), measurement of elevated compartment pressures (66.9%), and in the setting of large volume resuscitation requirements (31.3%). 69.4% of respondents selectively measure compartment pressures, with nearly three-fourths utilizing a Stryker needle device (72.5%). The most common sequence of repairs following superficial femoral artery injury with a >6-hour limb ischemia was cited as the initial insertion of a shunt, followed by fasciotomy, then vein harvest, and finally interposition repair. CONCLUSIONS: While there is some general consensus on indications for fasciotomy, there is marked heterogeneity in surgeons' opinions on the precise indications in selected scenarios. This is particularly surprising in light of the long history with fasciotomy in association with major arterial repairs and strongly suggests the need for a consensus conference and/or meta-analysis to guide further care.

Is endovascular repair the first choice for all blunt aortic injury? A real-world assessment.

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) represents an infrequently encountered but lethal traumatic injury. Minimal aortic injuries are appropriately treated by medical management, while more severe injuries require endovascular or open repair. Rapidly evolving endovascular technology has largely supplanted open repair as first line operative intervention, however, the complexity of the severely injured blunt trauma patient can complicate management decisions. The development and implementation of an optimal consensus grading system and treatment algorithm for the management of BTAI is necessary and will require multi-institutional study.

Bringing Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) Closer to the Point of Injury.

BACKGROUND: The management of noncompressible torso hemorrhage remains a significant issue at the point of injury. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been used in the hospital to control bleeding and bridge patients to definitive surgery. Smaller delivery systems and wirefree devices may be used more easily at the point of injury by nonphysician providers. We investigated whether independent duty military medical technicians (IDMTs) could learn and perform REBOA correctly and rapidly as assessed by simulation. METHODS: US Air Force IDMTs without prior endovascular experience were included. All participants received didactic instruction and evaluation of technical skills. Procedural times and pretest/posttest examinations were administered after completion of all trials. The Likert scale was used to subjectively assess confidence before and after instruction. RESULTS: Eleven IDMTs were enrolled. There was a significant decrease in procedural times from trials 1 to 6. Overall procedural time (± standard deviation) decreased from 147.7 ± 27.4 seconds to 64 ± 8.9 seconds (ρ < .001). There was a mean improvement of 83.7 ± 24.6 seconds from the first to sixth trial (ρ < .001). All participants demonstrated correct placement of the sheath, measurement and placement of the catheter, and inflation of the balloon throughout all trials (100%). There was significant improvement in comprehension and knowledge between the pretest and posttest; average performance improved significantly from 36.4.6% ± 12.3% to 71.1% ± 8.5% (ρ < .001). Subjectively, all 11 participants noted significant improvement in confidence from 1.2 to 4.1 out of 5 on the Likert scale (ρ < .001). CONCLUSION: Technology for aortic occlusion has advanced to provide smaller, wirefree devices, making field deployment more feasible. IDMTs can learn the steps required for REBOA and perform the procedure accurately and rapidly, as assessed by simulation. Arterial access is a challenge in the ability to perform REBOA and should be a focus of further training to promote this procedure closer to the point of injury.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: Pushing Care Forward.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), used to temporize noncompressible and junctional hemorrhage, may be deployable to the forward environment. Our hypothesis was that nonsurgeon physicians and high-level military medical technicians would be able to learn the theory and insertion of REBOA. METHODS: US Army Special Operations Command medical personnel without prior endovascular experience were included. All participants received didactic instruction of the Basic Endovascular Skills for Trauma Course™ together, with individual evaluation of technical skills. A pretest and a posttest were administered to assess comprehension. RESULTS: Four members of US Army Special Operations Command-two nonsurgeon physicians, one physician assistant, and one Special Operations Combat Medic-were included. REBOA procedural times moving from trial 1 to trial 6 decreased significantly from 186 ± 18.7 seconds to 83 ± 10.3 seconds (ρ < .0001). All participants demonstrated safe REBOA insertion and verbalized the indications for REBOA insertion and removal through all trials. All five procedural tasks were performed correctly by each participant. Comprehension and knowledge between the pretest and posttest improved significantly from 67.6 ± 7.3% to 81.3 ± 8.1% (ρ = .039). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that nonsurgeon and nonphysician providers can learn the steps required for REBOA after arterial access is established. Although insertion is relatively straightforward, the inability to gain arterial access percutaneously is prohibitive in providers without a surgical skillset and should be the focus of further training.