Search

Background: The early management of polytrauma patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) is a major challenge. Sparse data is available to provide optimal care in this scenario and worldwide variability in clinical practice has been documented in recent studies., Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus panel of physicians selected for their established clinical and scientific expertise in the acute management of tSCI polytrauma patients with different specializations was established. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) endorsed the consensus, and a modified Delphi approach was adopted., Results: A total of 17 statements were proposed and discussed. A consensus was reached generating 17 recommendations (16 strong and 1 weak)., Conclusions: This consensus provides practical recommendations to support a clinician's decision making in the management of tSCI polytrauma patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Severe traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients should be primarily admitted to a hub trauma center (hospital with neurosurgical capabilities) to allow immediate delivery of appropriate care in a specialized environment. Sometimes, severe TBI patients are admitted to a spoke hospital (hospital without neurosurgical capabilities), and scarce data are available regarding the optimal management of severe isolated TBI patients who do not have immediate access to neurosurgical care., Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus panel composed of 41 physicians selected for their established clinical and scientific expertise in the acute management of TBI patients with different specializations (anesthesia/intensive care, neurocritical care, acute care surgery, neurosurgery and neuroradiology) was established. The consensus was endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery, and a modified Delphi approach was adopted., Results: A total of 28 statements were proposed and discussed. Consensus was reached on 22 strong recommendations and 3 weak recommendations. In three cases, where consensus was not reached, no recommendation was provided., Conclusions: This consensus provides practical recommendations to support clinician's decision making in the management of isolated severe TBI patients in centers without neurosurgical capabilities and during transfer to a hub center., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team., Material and Methods: An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript., Conclusion: Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique., Results: We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79-2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p = 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate., Conclusions: Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when compared to RT but no differences compared to no-REBOA. Variability in indications and patient characteristics prevents any conclusion deserving further investigation. REBOA should be promoted in specific training programs in an experimental setting in order to test its effectiveness and a randomized trial should be planned., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aims: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta has been a hot topic in trauma resuscitation during these last years. The aims of this systematic review are to analyze when, how, and where this technique is performed and to evaluate preliminary results., Methods: The literature search was performed on online databases in December 2016, without time limits. Studies citing endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma were retrieved for evaluation., Results: Sixty-one articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the systematic review. Overall, they included 1355 treated with aortic endovascular balloon occlusion, and 883 (65%) patients died after the procedure. In most of the included cases, a shock state seemed to be present before the procedure. Time of death and inflation site was not described in the majority of included studies. Procedure-related and shock-related complications are described. Introducer sheath size and comorbidity seems to play the role of risk factors., Conclusions: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is increasingly used in trauma victim resuscitation all over the world, to elevate blood pressure and limit fluid infusion, while other procedures aimed to stop the bleeding are performed. High mortality rate is probably due to the severity of the injuries. Time and place of balloon insertion, zone of balloon inflation, and inflation cutoff time are very heterogeneous.

There is an increasing evidence in the literature showing that Acute Care surgical patients, likewise patients from every other surgical subspeciality, should be best first approached and managed only by attending surgeons with approriate expertise in the field of Emergency and Trauma Surgery, as well as the occurrence of postoperative complications can be prevented or safely and appropriately treated when arising, only by those attending surgeons having a focused knowledge of the patient and specific subspeciality experience. The advantages of a consultant-led, patient-centered surgical management come along with the opportunity of maintaining the principles of continuity of care and specificity of expertise in managing surgical patients and their complications and readmissions. These principles should be particularly valid in the well-recognized subspeciality of Acute Care and Trauma Surgery; managing the challenging emergency surgical patients either in the preoperative and postoperative periods with the aim to improve the outcomes of Emergency Surgery, should only be by surgeons trained and experienced in both Acute Care Surgery and Trauma.