Search

Additive manufacturing (AM) methods enable complex, customized, and on-demand production of many products from different material types across various industries. The growing demand for flexible and more sustainable manufacturing solutions places AM in the mix of processes considered for non-commodities. However, AM processes also present unintentional environmental releases in end-of-life (EoL) material management, compromising overall sustainability. Data availability to assess the sustainability of individual EoL material management from individual AM processes is limited. Even so, EoL materials generated across AM practices frequently overlap, supporting high-level assessment as an alternative approach. Therefore, a holistic AM EoL material management sustainability analysis was completed using a customized list of efficiency, environmental, energy, and economic indicators from the Gauging Reaction Effectiveness for the Environmental Sustainability of Chemistries with a multi-Objective Process Evaluator (GREENSCOPE) methodology. Subsequently, this assessment identified low material recycling rates and high energy costs in some EoL material management processes, such as incineration and recovery. Subsequently, a trade-off analysis was performed to determine process modification opportunities, including implementing recycling to reduce the amount of hazardous waste at the expense of additional energy and cost investment. The AM EoL-specific sustainability analysis serves as a resource to offer insights and empower policymakers and stakeholders to enhance pollution prevention strategies and optimize the existing EoL material management processes.

Objectives Recent studies evaluating fibrinogen replacement in trauma, along with newly available fibrinogen-based products, has led to an increase in debate on where products such as cryoprecipitate belong in our resuscitation strategies. We set out to define the phenotype and outcomes of those with hypofibrinogenemia and evaluate whether fibrinogen replacement should have a role in the initial administration of massive transfusion.Methods All patients

Introduction Dysphagia is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization in hospitalized patients, but studies on outcomes in geriatric trauma patients with dysphagia are limited. We hypothesized that geriatric trauma patients with dysphagia would have worse clinical outcomes compared with those without dysphagia.Methods Patients with and without dysphagia were compared in a single-center retrospective cohort study of trauma patients aged ≥65 years admitted in 2019. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, discharge destination, and unplanned ICU admission. Multivariable regression analyses and Bayesian analyses adjusted for age, Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, and gender were performed to determine the association between dysphagia and clinical outcomes.Results Of 1706 geriatric patients, 69 patients (4%) were diagnosed with dysphagia. Patients with dysphagia were older with a higher Injury Severity Score. Increased odds of mortality did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.4, p=0.30). Dysphagia was associated with increased odds of unplanned ICU admission (OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 9.6, p≤0.001) and non-home discharge (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.4 to 13.9, p≤0.001), as well as increased ICU LOS (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.1, p≤0.001), and hospital LOS (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.6, p≤0.001). On Bayesian analysis, dysphagia was associated with an increased probability of longer hospital and ICU LOS, unplanned ICU admission, and non-home discharge.Conclusions Clinically apparent dysphagia is associated with poor outcomes, but it remains unclear if dysphagia represents a modifiable risk factor or a marker of underlying frailty, leading to poor outcomes. This study highlights the importance of screening protocols for dysphagia in geriatric trauma patients to possibly mitigate adverse outcomes.Level of evidence Level III.

Background Although widely used in treating severe abdominal trauma, damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been assessed in any randomized controlled trial. We conducted a pilot trial among patients for whom our surgeons had equipoise and hypothesized that definitive laparotomy (DEF) would reduce major abdominal complications (MAC) or death within 30 days compared with DCL.Methods Eligible patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were randomized during surgery to DCL or DEF from July 2016 to May 2019. The primary outcome was MAC or death within 30 days. Prespecified frequentist and Bayesian analyses were performed.Results Of 489 eligible patients, 39 patients were randomized (DCL 18, DEF 21) and included. Groups were similar in demographics and mechanism of injury. The DEF group had a higher Injury Severity Score (DEF median 34 (IQR 20, 43) vs DCL 29 (IQR 22, 41)) and received more prerandomization blood products (DEF median red blood cells 8 units (IQR 6, 11) vs DCL 6 units (IQR 2, 11)). In unadjusted analyses, the DEF group had more MAC or death within 30 days (1.71, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.63, p=0.159) due to more deaths within 30 days (DEF 33% vs DCL 0%, p=0.010). Adjustment for Injury Severity Score and prerandomization blood products reduced the risk ratio for MAC or death within 30 days to 1.54 (95% CI 0.71 to 3.32, p=0.274). The Bayesian probability that DEF increased MAC or death within 30 days was 85% in unadjusted analyses and 66% in adjusted analyses.Conclusion The findings of our single center pilot trial were inconclusive. Outcomes were not worse with DCL and, in fact, may have been better. A randomized clinical trial of DCL is feasible and a larger, multicenter trial is needed to compare DCL and DEF for patients with severe abdominal trauma.Level of evidence Level II.

Background Non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH) is the leading cause of preventable death after trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) achieves temporary hemorrhage control, supporting cardiac and cerebral perfusion prior to definitive hemostasis. Aortic zone selection algorithms vary among institutions. We evaluated the efficacy of an algorithm for REBOA use.Methods A multicenter prospective, observational study conducted at six level 1 trauma centers over 12 months. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years with evidence of infradiaphragmatic NCTH needing emergent hemorrhage control within 60 min of ED arrival. An algorithm characterized by the results of focused assessment with sonography in trauma and pelvic X-ray was assessed post hoc for efficacy in a cohort of patients receiving REBOA.Results Of the 8166 patients screened, 78 patients had a REBOA placed. 21 patients were excluded, leaving 57 patients for analysis. The algorithm ensures REBOA deployment proximal to hemorrhage source to control bleeding in 98.2% of cases and accurately predicts the optimal REBOA zone in 78.9% of cases. If the algorithm was violated, bleeding was optimally controlled in only 43.8% (p=0.01). Three (75.0%) of the patients that received an inappropriate zone 1 REBOA died, two from multiple organ failure (MOF). All three patients that died with an inappropriate zone 3 REBOA died from exsanguination.Discussion This algorithm ensures proximal hemorrhage control and accurately predicts the primary source of hemorrhage. We propose a new algorithm that will be more inclusive. A zone 3 REBOA should not be performed when a zone 1 is indicated by the algorithm as 100% of these patients exsanguinated. MOF, perhaps from visceral ischemia in patients with an inappropriate zone 1 REBOA, may have been prevented with zone 3 placement or limited zone 1 occlusion time.Level of evidence Level III.