Search

In patients with abdominal trauma who require laparotomy, up to a quarter or a third will have a vascular injury. The venous structures mainly injured are the vena cava (29%) and the iliac veins (20%), and arterial vessels are the iliac arteries (16%) and the aorta (14%). The initial approach is performed following the ATLS principles. This manuscript aims to present the surgical approach to abdominal vascular trauma following damage control principles. The priority in a trauma laparotomy is bleeding control. Hemorrhages of intraperitoneal origin are controlled by applying pressure, clamping, packing, and retroperitoneal with selective pressure. After the temporary bleeding control is achieved, the compromised vascular structure must be identified, according to the location of the hematomas. The management of all lesions should be oriented towards the expeditious conclusion of the laparotomy, focusing efforts on the bleeding control and contamination, with a postponement of the definitive management. Their management of vascular injuries includes ligation, transient bypass, and packing of selected low-pressure vessels and bleeding surfaces. Subsequently, the unconventional closure of the abdominal cavity should be performed, preferably with negative pressure systems, to reoperate once the hemodynamic alterations and coagulopathy have been corrected to carry out the definitive management., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Colombia Medica.)

Damage control surgery principles allow delayed management of traumatic lesions and early metabolic resuscitation by performing abbreviated procedures and prompt resuscitation maneuvers in severely injured trauma patients. However, the initial physiological response to trauma and surgery, along with the hemostatic resuscitation efforts, causes important side effects on intracavitary organs such as tissue edema, increased cavity pressure, and hemodynamic collapse. Consequently, different techniques have been developed over the years for a delayed cavity closure. Nonetheless, the optimal management of abdominal and thoracic surgical closure remains controversial. This article aims to describe the indications and surgical techniques for delayed abdominal or thoracic closure following damage control surgery in severely injured trauma patients, based on the experience obtained by the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Group (CTE) of Cali, Colombia. We recommend negative pressure dressing as the gold standard technique for delayed cavity closure, associated with higher wall closure success rates and lower complication and mortality rates., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Colombia Medica.)

Penetrating torso trauma is the second leading cause of death following head injury. Traffic accidents, falls and overall blunt trauma are the most common mechanism of injuries in developed countries; whereas, penetrating trauma which includes gunshot and stabs wounds is more prevalent in developing countries due to ongoing violence and social unrest. Penetrating chest and abdominal trauma have high mortality rates at the scene of the incident when important structures such as the heart, great vessels, or liver are involved. Current controversies surround the optimal surgical approach of these cases including the use of an endovascular device such as the Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) and the timing of additional imaging aids. This article aims to shed light on this subject based on the experience earned during the past 30 years in trauma critical care management of the severely injured patient. We have found that prioritizing the fact that the patient is hemodynamically unstable and obtaining early open or endovascular occlusion of the aorta to gain ground on avoiding the development of the lethal diamond is of utmost importance. Damage control surgery starts with choosing the right surgery of the right cavity in the right patient. For this purpose, we present a practical and simple guide on how to perform the surgical approach to penetrating torso trauma in a hemodynamically unstable patient., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, (Copyright © 2021 Colombia Medica.)

Background: Early damage-control resuscitation (DCR) indicators have not been clearly discerned in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. Our objective was to identify these clinical indicators that could standardize a DCR initiation policy in this subset of patients., Methods: Prospective data collection from January 2003 to October 2010 at a Level I trauma center in Cali, Colombia. All adult (>15 years) patients with abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs) were included. They were divided into two groups: those who underwent DCR and those who did not. Both groups were compared by demographics, clinical variables, severity scores, and overall mortality. Other scores were compared with our newly devised model using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)., Results: There was a total of 331 abdominal GSWs. Of these, a total of 162 (49%) underwent DCR. The overall mortality was 11.2%. Multivariate analysis identified (A) acidosis (base deficit ≥ 8); (B) blood loss (hemoperitoneum > 1,500 mL); (C) cold (temperature < 35 °C); (D) damage (New Injury Severity Score > 35) as significant clinical indicators that aided in the decision process of early implementation of DCR. The Trauma-Associated Severe Hemorrhage (AUROC, 0.8333), McLaughlin (AUROC, 0.8148), ABC (AUROC, 0.7372) scores and our ABCD mnemonic (AUROC, 0.8745) were all good predictors of DCR, and the difference between them was statistically significant (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: We have identified (A) acidosis (base deficit ≥ 8); (B) blood loss (hemoperitoneum > 1,500 mL); (C) cold (temperature < 35 °C); (D) damage (New Injury Severity Score > 35) as significant clinical indicators that aided in the decision process of early implementation of DCR for patients with abdominal GSWs., Level of Evidence: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Background: Recent studies report the safety and feasibility of performing delayed anastomosis (DA) in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy (DCL) for destructive colon injuries (DCIs). Despite accumulating experience in both civilian and military trauma, questions regarding how to best identify high-risk patients and minimize the number of anastomosis-associated complications remain. Our current practice is to perform a definitive closure of the colon during DCL, unless there is persistent acidosis, bowel wall edema, or evidence of intra-abdominal abscess. In this study, we evaluated the safety of this approach by comparing outcomes of patients with DCI who underwent definitive closure of the colon during DCL versus patients managed with colostomy with or without DCL., Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with penetrating DCI during 2003 to 2009. Severity of injury, surgical management, and clinical outcome were assessed., Results: Sixty patients with severe gunshot wounds and three patients with stab wounds were included in the analysis. DCL was required in 30 patients, all with gunshot wounds. Three patients died within the first 48 hours, three underwent colostomy, and 24 were managed with DA. Thirty-three patients were managed with standard laparotomy: 26 patients with primary anastomosis and 7 with colostomy. Overall mortality rate was 9.5%. Three late deaths occurred in the DCL group, and only one death was associated with an anastomotic leak., Conclusions: Performing a DA in DCI during DCL is a reliable and feasible approach as long as severe acidosis, bowel wall edema, and/or persistent intra-abdominal infections are not present.