Search

This article outlines the position of The Eastern Association of the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) in defining the role of surgeons, and specifically trauma/critical care surgeons, in the development of public health initiatives that are designed to react to and deal effectively with acts of terrorism. All aspects of the surgeon's role in response to mass casualty incidents are considered, from prehospital response teams to the postevent debriefing. The role of the surgeon in response to mass casualty incidents (MCIs) is substantial in response to threats and injury from natural, unintentional, and intentional disasters. The surgeon must take an active role in pre-event community preparation in training, planning, and executing the response to MCI. The marriage of initiatives among Departments of Public Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and existing trauma systems will provide a template for successful responses to terrorist acts.

Background: Little attention has been focused on destructive injuries of the bowel in patients requiring open abdominal management. We therefore reviewed our institutional experience for destructive bowel injury requiring open abdominal management with the vacuum pack technique (vac). Methods: The trauma registry at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients sustaining destructive bowel injury for an 11-year period beginning in May 1990. Patients were assessed for pertinent clinical and demographic information, and individuals requiring open abdominal management were compared with those who did not. Results: One hundred four patients required bowel resection and constitute the study population. Twenty-nine patients had vacs placed, with 22 (75.9%) of the total eventually obtaining delayed fascial closure. Nineteen (18.3%) patients had resection and primary repair (PR) of large and/or small bowel in conjunction with a vac, 10 (9.6%) patients had stoma formation in conjunction with a vac, 62 (59.6%) patients had resection and PR of small and/or large bowel in conjunction with primary fascial closure, and 13 (12.5%) patients had stoma formation and primary fascial closure. There were no differences in abdominal abscess or leak rates between groups. There were four deaths, none of which was secondary to failure of an anastomosis. Conclusion: Bowel resection with PR appears to be a safe alternative after destructive bowel injury and results in acceptable morbidity when performed in conjunction with open abdominal management.

Objective: To define those physiologic and clinical variables that have a positive or negative predictive value in discriminating survivors from nonsurvivors with traumatic injuries and a Trauma Score of 5 or less. Methods: A retrospective review of 2,622 trauma patients transported by an air medical service from the scene of injury to a Level I trauma center was performed. Demographic, physiologic, and clinical variables were evaluated. Results: One hundred thirty-six patients were studied; 14 patients survived trauma resuscitation. Survivors had statistically significant improvement in the Glasgow Coma Scale from the field to arrival in the emergency room. Revised Trauma Score, probability of survival, pulse, respiratory rate, cardiac rhythm, central nervous system activity, and signs of life were statistically more favorable in survivors. Conclusion: In patients who survived to discharge, signs of central nervous system activity in the field was a positive predictor of survival, and severe head injury served as a negative predictor of survival.

Background: Recognizing the significant mortality and complications inherent in the operative management of blunt hepatic injuries, hepatic arterial embolization was evaluated as a bridge between operative and nonoperative interventions in patients defined as hemodynamically stable only with continuous resuscitation. Methods: Seven of 11 patients with grade IV or V hepatic injuries identified by computed tomography underwent hepatic arterial embolization. A prospective evaluation of hepatic embolization based on subsequent hemodynamic parameters was assessed by matched-pair analysis. A summary of this study population's demographic data and outcomes is presented, including age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, computed tomography grade, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, transfusion requirements, complications, and mortality. Results: No statistical difference was demonstrated between pre-embolization and postembolization hemodynamics and volume requirements. After embolization, however, continuous resuscitation was successfully reduced to maintenance fluids. Hepatic embolization was the definitive therapy for all seven patients who underwent embolization. Conclusion: Results of this preliminary investigation suggest that hepatic arterial embolization is a viable alternative bridging the therapeutic options of operative and nonoperative intervention for a subpopulation of patients with hepatic injury.

Objectives : Nonoperative management of hemodynamically stable blunt hepatic injury has emerged as an acceptable and safe treatment. Surveillance of this population's injuries is costly. As a prelude to establishing practice guidelines, the utility of repeat computed tomographic (CT) scans was investigated. Methods : A retrospective study was conducted on 243 hepatic injuries. The CT scans of 95 patients managed nonoperatively who did not have ongoing transfusion requirements were reviewed and graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) hepatic injury scale. Patients were grouped according to injury grade, assigned to two subgroups (patients with one CT scan versus more than one CT scan) and compared with respect to several physiologic and clinical variables. Results : Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between subgroups with the same grade of injury. No significant difference was demonstrated between subgroups' length of stay. Conclusions : No patients failed nonoperative treatment or succumbed to their injuries. Findings on repeat CT scan have not altered the decision to discharge the clinically stable patient having suffered a grade III or lower liver injury.