Management of Traumatic Radial and Ulnar Artery Injuries and Risk Factors for Amputation.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic injuries to the radial and/or ulnar arteries represent a subset of arterial injuries. In the absence of injury to both forearm arteries, treatment was historically ligation if perfusion was maintained to the hand via the uninjured vessels or adequate collateral vessels. We sought to determine management of traumatic forearm arterial injuries in 2019 and to identify risk factors for major upper extremity amputation. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was queried by International Classification of Diseases 10 code for patients with traumatic radial and/or ulnar artery injuries within the year 2019. Patient demographics, Injury Severity Score, time to operating room, type of repair, outcomes, and mortality were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for major upper extremity amputation. RESULTS: A total of 4048 patients with traumatic radial and/or ulnar artery injuries were identified. A total of 1907 radial artery operations were performed including repair (59%), ligation (29%), and interposition bypass (12%). A total of 1637 ulnar artery operations were completed including repair (67%), ligation (21%), and interposition bypass (12%). Major upper extremity amputation occurred in 0.6%. Older age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.014, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.004-1.024, P = 0.0048), blunt mechanism (AOR: 2.457, 95% CI: 1.730-3.497, P < 0.0.0001), and ipsilateral radial and ulnar artery injury (AOR: 2.148, 95% CI: 1.298-3.553, P = 0.0029) were associated with major amputation. Surgical revascularization, time to operating room, fasciotomy, and compartment syndrome were not associated with major amputation, but this may be secondary to Type II error. CONCLUSIONS: In the operating room, radial and ulnar artery injuries were managed more often with restoration of flow versus ligation. Older age, blunt mechanism, and ipsilateral radial and ulnar artery injury were associated with major amputation. Amputation rate was low at 3% overall and 0.6% for amputation of the hand or a more proximal level. Upper extremity fracture, upper extremity nerve injury, and ipsilateral radial and ulnar artery injury were associated with need for revision operation.

Role of Endovascular Stenting in Patients with Traumatic Iliac Artery Injury.

BACKGROUND: Common and external iliac artery injuries (IAI) portend significant morbidity and mortality. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of mechanism of injury and type of repair on outcomes and identify the optimal repair for patients with traumatic IAI using a large, national dataset. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing operative repair for IAI were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database during a 5-year timespan, ending in 2019. Age, sex, race, severity of injury, severity of shock, type of iliac repair (open or endovascular), mechanism, morbidity and mortality were recorded. Patients with IAI were stratified by both type of repair and mechanism and compared. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of mortality. RESULTS: Operative IAI was identified in 507 patients. Of these injuries, 309 (61%) were penetrating and 346 (68.2%) involved the external iliac artery. The majority of patients were male (82%) with a median age and ISS of 31 and 20, respectively. Endovascular repair was performed in 31% of cases. For patients with penetrating injuries, the type of repair impacted neither morbidity nor mortality. For blunt-injured patients, endovascular repair was associated with lower morbidity (29.3% vs 41.3%; p = 0.082) and significantly reduced mortality (14.6% vs 26.7%; p = 0.037) compared with the open-repair approach. Multivariable logistic regression identified endovascular repair as the only modifiable risk factor associated with decreased mortality (odds ratio 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.79; p = 0.0116). CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic IAI causes significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular repair was identified as the only modifiable predictor of decreased mortality in blunt-injured patients with traumatic IAI. Therefore, for select patients with blunt IAIs, an endovascular repair should be the preferred approach.

Impact of Endovascular Stenting on Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Subclavian Artery Injury.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic subclavian artery injury (SAI) remains uncommon but can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Although open and endovascular repair offer excellent limb salvage rates, their role in blunt and penetrating injuries is not well defined. The goal of this study was to examine the effect of mechanism of injury and type of repair on outcomes in patients with traumatic SAI. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing procedures for traumatic SAI were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database between 2015 and 2018. Demographics, severity of injury and shock, type of subclavian repair (open vs endovascular), morbidity, and mortality were recorded. Patients with SAI were stratified by mechanism and type of repair and compared. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-seven patients undergoing procedures for SAI were identified. Of these, 39% were penetrating. The majority were male (80%) with a median age and Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 37 and 21, respectively. 58% of patients were managed endovascularly. For patients with blunt injury, the type of repair affected neither morbidity (25% vs 19%, p = 0.116) nor mortality (11% vs 10%, p = 0.70). For patients with penetrating injuries, endovascular repair had significantly lower morbidity (12% vs 22%, p = 0.028) and mortality (6% vs 21%, p = 0.001). MLR identified endovascular repair as the only modifiable risk factor associated with reduced mortality (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.87, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: SAI results in significant morbidity and mortality regardless of mechanism. Although the type of repair did not affect mortality in patients with blunt injury, endovascular repair was identified as the only modifiable predictor of reduced mortality in patients with penetrating injuries.