Search

Introduction Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity. Methods Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Results Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intra-abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584). Conclusion The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma. Level of evidence Therapeutic Study, level IV.

BACKGROUND: Blunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) is a rare injury. The objective of the current study was to examine the presentation and management of BAAI at a multi-institutional level. METHODS: The Western Trauma Association Multi-Center Trials conducted a study of BAAI from 1996 to 2011. Data collected included demographics, injury mechanism, associated injuries, interventions, and complications. RESULTS: Of 392,315 blunt trauma patients, 113 (0.03%) presented with BAAI at 12 major trauma centers (67% male; median age, 38 years; range, 6-88; median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 34; range, 16-75). The leading cause of injury was motor vehicle collisions (60%). Hypotension was documented in 47% of the cases. The most commonly associated injuries were spine fractures (44%) and pneumothorax/hemothorax (42%). Solid organ, small bowel, and large bowel injuries occurred in 38%, 35%, and 28% respectively. BAAI presented as free aortic rupture (32%), pseudoaneurysm (16%), and injuries without aortic external contour abnormality on computed tomography such as large intimal flaps (34%) or intimal tears (18%). Open and endovascular repairs were undertaken as first-choice therapy in 43% and 15% of cases, respectively. Choice of management varied by type of BAAI: 89% of intimal tears were managed nonoperatively, and 96% of aortic ruptures were treated with open repair. Overall mortality was 39%, the majority (68%) occurring in the first 24 hours because of hemorrhage or cardiac arrest. The highest mortality was associated with Zone II aortic ruptures (92%). Follow-up was documented in 38% of live discharges. CONCLUSION: This is the largest BAAI series reported to date. BAAI presents as a spectrum of injury ranging from minimal aortic injury to aortic rupture. Nonoperative management is successful in uncomplicated cases without external aortic contour abnormality on computed tomography. Highest mortality occurred in free aortic ruptures, suggesting that alternative measures of early noncompressible torso hemorrhage control are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Multicenter retrospective review, level IV. Language: en

This study was designed to examine the characteristics of pedestrian and bicyclist collisions with motor vehicles within New York City's high-density hub. The primary objectives were to map crash locations and to identify hot spots within these injury clusters. The secondary objective was to quantify differences in injury severity based on road type and user behaviors.Between December 2008 and June 2011, data were prospectively collected from pedestrians and bicyclists struck by motor vehicles and brought to Bellevue Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in New York City. Behaviors by cohort (i.e., crossing patterns for pedestrians, riding patterns for bicyclists), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and collision locations were extracted from the database. Analyses of mean ISS were performed using a Student's t test with a p0.05 considered significant. Geomaps were created to identify clusters or "hot spots," where higher volumes of crashes occurred over time. Spatial analysis was performed to demonstrate whether these were random events.A total of 1,457 patients (1,075 pedestrians and 382 bicyclists) were enrolled. Collision locations were known for 97.5%. Of the injured pedestrians, those crossing avenues (n = 277) had higher ISSs than those crossing streets (n = 522) (p = 0.01) and were more likely to die (p = 0.002). Pedestrians crossing midblock (n = 185) had higher mean ISSs than those crossing with the signal in the crosswalk (n = 320) (8.12 vs. 5.01, p0.001). Based on density mapping, hot spots of pedestrian collisions were detected in midtown Manhattan, while hot spots for bicyclists were detected at bridge and tunnel portals. Spatial analysis indicates that these are not random events (p0.05).Pedestrians injured on avenues sustained more serious injuries than those injured on narrower streets. A better understanding of collision locations and features may allow for tailored injury prevention strategies. Trauma centers serve an important role in public health surveillance within their local communities.Epidemiologic study, level III.

While the efficacy of helmet use in the prevention of head injury is well described, helmet use as it relates to bicyclists' behaviors and hospital resource use following injury is less defined. The objective of this study was to compare the demographics, behaviors, hospital workups, and outcomes of bicyclists based on helmet use.This study was a subset analysis of a 2.5-year prospective cohort study of vulnerable roadway users conducted at Bellevue Hospital Center, a New York City Level 1 trauma center. All bicyclists with known helmet status were included. Demographics, insurance type, traffic law compliance, alcohol use, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, initial imaging studies, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score, Injury Severity Score (ISS), admission status, length of stay, disposition, and mortality were assessed. Information was obtained primarily from patients; witnesses and first responders provided additional information.Of 374 patients, 113 (30.2%) were wearing helmets. White bicyclists were more likely to wear helmets; black bicyclists were less likely (p = 0.037). Patients with private insurance were more likely to wear helmets, those with Medicaid or no insurance were less likely (p = 0.027). Helmeted bicyclists were more likely to ride with the flow of traffic (97.2%) and within bike lanes (83.7%) (p0.001 and p = 0.013, respectively). Nonhelmeted bicyclists were more likely to ride against traffic flow (p = 0.003). There were no statistically significant differences in mean GCS score, AIS score, and mean ISS for helmeted versus nonhelmeted bicyclists. Nonhelmeted patients were more likely to have head computed tomographic scans (p = 0.049) and to be admitted (p = 0.030).Helmet use is an indicator of safe riding practices, although most injured bicyclists do not wear them. In this study, helmet use was associated with lower likelihood of head CTs and admission, leading to less hospital resource use. Injured riders failing to wear helmets should be targeted for educational programs.Epidemiologic study, level III.