Search

Background: The role of prehospital focused assessment sonography for trauma (FAST) is still under debate and no definitive recommendations are available in actual guidelines, moreover, the availability of ultrasound machines in emergency medical services (EMS) is still inhomogeneous. On the other hand, time to definitive care is strictly related to survival in bleeding trauma patients. This study aimed at investigating if a positive prehospital FAST in abdominal trauma patients could have a role in reducing door-to-CT scan or door-to-operating room (OR) time., Methods: This retrospective observational study included all the patients affected by an abdominal trauma with an abdominal abbreviated injury score ≥ 2 and a spleen or liver injury admitted to Maggiore Hospital Carlo Alberto Pizzardi, a level 1 trauma centre between 2014 and 2019. Prehospital and emergency department (ED) clinical and laboratory variables were collected, as well as in-hospital times during the diagnostic and therapeutic pathways of these patients., Results: 199 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 44 had a prehospital FAST performed and in 27 of them, peritoneal free fluid was detected in the prehospital setting, while 128 out of 199 patients had a positive ED-FAST. Sensitivity was 62.9% (95% CI: 42.4%-80.6%) and specificity 100% (95% CI: 80.5% - 100%). Patients with a positive prehospital FAST reported a significantly lower door-to-CT or door-to-OR median time (46 vs 69 min, p < 0.001). Prehospital hypotension and Glasgow coma scale, first arterial blood lactate, ISS, age, positive prehospital and ED FAST were inserted in a stepwise selection for a multivariable Cox proportional regression hazards model. Only ISS and prehospital FAST resulted significantly associated with a reduction in the door-to-CT scan or door-to-operating theatre time in the multivariable model., Conclusion: Prehospital FAST information of intraperitoneal free fluid could significantly hasten door-to-CT scan or door-to-operating theatre time in abdominal trauma patients if established hospital response protocols are available., Level of Evidence: III, (Therapeutic / Care Management)., Competing Interests: Decleration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The objective of our study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of non-operative management (NOM) and splenic artery embolization (SAE) in the management of hemodynamically stable patients with splenic injuries., Materials and Methods: In a 5-year period, 109 patients were recorded; 60/109 were treated with NOM and 49/109 with SAE. For each patient, the following parameters were assessed: Glasgow coma scale, injury severity score, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury grade, transfusion requirements, hemoglobin level, presence of a splenic vascular lesion (SVL) and amount of hemoperitoneum (Bessoud scale). Different SAE techniques (proximal, distal, combined) with different materials were employed. Clinical success was defined as spleen conservation at 30 days; failure was defined as spleen re-bleeding within 30 days, requiring splenectomy. Student's t test or Chi-square analysis and the Kaplan-Mayer curve were used to analyse each group's results and compare them with those of the other group., Results: In the SAE group, AAST splenic injury grade was higher and serum hemoglobin levels were lower. The SAE group had significantly more SVL and hemoperitoneum compared to the NOM group. The clinical success rate was not significantly different between groups (NOM = 95%, SAE = 87.8%; p = 0.16). Sixty-six percent of NOM failures were related to inadequate patient selection, while 67% of SAE failures were due to technical/procedural issues., Conclusion: Our study observed a high splenic salvage rate with the use of SAE as an adjunct to NOM, and suggests that it may be further improved with appropriate patient selection and an improved embolization technique.

Background and Aims: Laparotomy can detect bowel and mesenteric injuries in 1.2%-5% of patients following blunt abdominal trauma. Delayed diagnosis in such cases is strongly related to increased risk of ongoing sepsis, with subsequent higher morbidity and mortality. Computed tomography (CT) scanning is the gold standard in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma, being accurate in the diagnosis of bowel and mesenteric injuries in case of hemodynamically stable trauma patients. Aims of the present study are to 1) review the correlation between CT signs and intraoperative findings in case of bowel and mesenteric injuries following blunt abdominal trauma, analysing the correlation between radiological features and intraoperative findings from our experience on 25 trauma patients with small bowel and mesenteric injuries (SBMI); 2) identify the diagnostic specificity of those signs found at CT with practical considerations on the following clinical management; and 3) distinguish the bowel and mesenteric injuries requiring immediate surgical intervention from those amenable to initial nonoperative management., Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2008, and May 31, 2010, 163 patients required laparotomy following blunt abdominal trauma. Among them, 25 patients presented bowel or mesenteric injuries. Data were analysed retrospectively, correlating operative surgical reports with the preoperative CT findings., Results: We are presenting a pictorial review of significant and frequent findings of bowel and mesenteric lesions at CT scan, confirmed intraoperatively at laparotomy. Moreover, the predictive value of CT scan for SBMI is assessed., Conclusions: Multidetector CT scan is the gold standard in the assessment of intra-abdominal blunt abdominal trauma for not only parenchymal organs injuries but also detecting SBMI; in the presence of specific signs it provides an accurate assessment of hollow viscus injuries, helping the trauma surgeons to choose the correct initial clinical management., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Association of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A part of damage-control laparotomy is to leave the fascial edges and the skin open to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome and allow further explorations. This condition, known as open abdomen (OA), although effective, is associated with severe complications. Our aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations to define indications for OA, techniques for temporary abdominal closure, management of enteric fistulas, and methods of definitive wall closure., Methods: The literature from 1990 to 2014 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses] protocol. Seventy-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendations (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] system, and an international consensus conference was held., Results: OA in trauma is indicated at the end of damage-control laparotomy, in the presence of visceral swelling, for a second look in vascular injuries or gross contamination, in the case of abdominal wall loss, and if medical treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome has failed (GoR B, LoE II). Negative-pressure wound therapy is the recommended temporary abdominal closure technique to drain peritoneal fluid, improve nursing, and prevent fascial retraction (GoR B, LoE I). Lack of OA closure within 8 days (GoR C, LoE II), bowel injuries, high-volume replacement, and use of polypropylene mesh over the bowel (GoR C, LoE I) are risk factors for frozen abdomen and fistula formation. Negative-pressure wound therapy allows to isolate the fistula and protect the surrounding tissues from spillage until granulation (GoR C, LoE II). Correction of fistula is performed after 6 months to 12 months. Definitive closure of OA has to be obtained early (GoR C, LoE I) with direct suture, traction devices, component separation with or without mesh. Biologic meshes are an option for wall reinforcement if bacterial contamination is present (GoR C, LoE II)., Conclusion: OA and negative-pressure techniques improve the care of trauma patients, but closure must be achieved early to avoid complications.

Purpose: Major liver trauma in polytraumatic patients accounts for significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess prognostic factors for morbidity and mortality in patients with severe liver trauma undergoing perihepatic packing., Methods: Prospectively collected records of 293 consecutive polytrauma patients with liver injury admitted at a level I trauma centre between 1996 and 2008 were reviewed. 39 patients with grade IV-V AAST liver injury and treated with peri-hepatic packing were identified and included for analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors for morbidity and mortality., Results: Mean age of patients was 41 years. 34 patients were haemodynamically unstable at initial presentation. Ten of 39 patients were treated with angiographic embolization in addition to perihepatic packing. The overall mortality rate was 51.3%. Liver-related death occurred in 23.1%. Overall and liver-related morbidity rates were 90% and 28%, respectively. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), respiratory rate, packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfusion, pH and Base Excess (BE), Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS), need for angiographic embolization as well as early OR and ICU admission were associated with significant decrease of early mortality., Conclusions: Revised Trauma Score, haemodynamic instability, blood pH and BE are important prognostic factors influencing morbidity and mortality in polytrauma patients with grade IV/V liver injury. Furthermore, fast and effective surgical damage control procedure with perihepatic packing, followed by early ICU admission is associated with lower complication rate and shorter ICU stays in this patient population., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: Abdominal trauma rarely causes injuries involving the duodenum and pancreas. Associated injuries occur in 46% of all pancreatic injuries. The morbidity and mortality of pancreaticoduodenal injuries remain high., Methods: The present study is a retrospective review of our experience from 1989 to 2008 in the surgical treatment of traumatic pancreaticoduodenal injuries. Mortality, morbidity, prognostic factors, and the value of surgical techniques were analyzed., Results: In our level I Trauma Center, between 1989 and 2008, 55 patients had a pancreaticoduodenal injury. In 68.5% of cases pancreatic injuries were found, 20.4% had duodenal injury, and 11.1% suffered combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries; 85.3% of the patients had blunt abdominal trauma, while 14.9% had penetrating injuries. We treated 78.1% of the patients with external drainage and/or simple suture; distal pancreatectomy was performed in 9% of cases and duodenal resection with anastomosis (3.7%) and diversion procedures (3.7%) were performed in an equal number of patients. Age, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade, organ involved, hemodynamic status, intraoperative cardiac arrest, and operative time remained strongly predictive of mortality on multivariate analysis. The AAST grade represented, on multivariate analysis, the only independent prognostic factor predictive of overall morbidity. In the past decade we have used feeding jejunostomy more frequently, with a reduction of mortality and operating time, due also to a better approach from a dedicated trauma team., Conclusions: Optimal management and better outcome of pancreaticoduodenal injuries seem to be associated with shorter operative time, and with simple and fast damage control surgery (DCS), in contrast to definitive surgical procedures.

Background: since 2005, we refined the technique of perihepatic packing including complete mobilization of the right lobe and packing around the posterior paracaval surface, lateral right side, and anterior and posteroinferior surfaces., Methods: two groups of patients with grade IV/V liver trauma underwent perihepatic packing before and after 2005. The study group included 12 patients treated with the new technique. The control group included 23 patients treated with the old technique., Results: all 13 patients except one who died within 24 hours were treated with the old technique. The overall survival rate was 75% in the patients treated with the new technique (vs 30.4%, P < .02); the liver-related mortality was 8.3% versus 34.8% (P = not significant). The mean survival time in the intensive care unit was longer in the latest group (39.4 vs 22.3 days, P = not significant). The incidence of rebleeding requiring repacking was 16.7% in the patients who underwent new packing versus 45.5% in the patient who were treated with the old technique (P = not significant). The overall (81.8% vs 100%, P = not significant) and liver-related morbidity rate (18.2% vs 41.7%, P = not significant) and the incidence of abdominal sepsis (9.1% vs 41.7%, P = not significant) decreased., Conclusions: our refined technique of perihepatic packing seems to be safe and effective., (2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)