Search

Background: This study reviews our cumulative experience with the management of patients presenting with a retained knife following a penetrating neck injury (PNI).Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a major trauma center in South Africa over a 15-year period from July 2006 to December 2020. All patients who presented with a retained knife in the neck following a stab wound (SW) were included.Results: Twenty-two cases were included: 20 males (91%), mean age: 29 years. 77% (17/22) were retained knives and 23% (5/22) were retained blades. Eighteen (82%) were in the anterior neck, and the remaining 4 cases were in the posterior neck. Plain radiography was performed in 95% (21/22) of cases, and computed tomography (CT) was performed in 91% (20/22). Ninety-five percent (21/22) had the knife or blade extracted in the operating room (OR). Formal neck exploration (FNE) was undertaken in 45% (10/22) of cases, and the remaining 55% (12/22) underwent simple extraction (SE) only. Formal neck exploration was more commonly performed for anterior neck retained knives than the posterior neck, although not statistically significant [56% (10/18) vs 0% (0/18), P = .096]. There were no significant differences in the need for intensive care admission, length of hospital stay, morbidities, or mortalities between anterior and posterior neck retained knives.Discussion: Uncontrolled extraction of a retained knife in the neck outside of the operating room may be dangerous. Retained knives in the anterior neck commonly required formal neck exploration but not for posterior neck retained knives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comprehensive analysis of trauma care between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC/MIC/LIC) is needed to improve global health. Comparison of HIC and MIC outcomes after damage control laparotomy (DCL) for patients is unknown. We evaluated DCL utilization among patients treated at high-volume trauma centers in the USA and South Africa, an MIC, hypothesizing similar mortality outcomes despite differences in resources and setting. Methods: Post hoc analysis of prospectively collected trauma databases from participating centers was performed. Injury severity, physiologic, operative data and post-operative outcomes were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences between HIC/MIC for the primary outcome of mortality. Results: There were 967 HIC and 602 MIC patients who underwent laparotomy. DCL occurred in 144 MIC patients (25%) and 241 HIC (24%) patients. Most sustained (58%) penetrating trauma with higher rates in the MIC compared to the HIC (71 vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Between groups, no differences were found for admission physiology, coagulopathy, or markers of shock except for increased presence of hypotension among patients in the HIC. Crystalloid infusion volumes were greater among MIC patients, and MIC patients received fewer blood products than those in the HIC. Overall mortality was 30% with similar rates between groups (29 in HIC vs. 33% in MIC, p = 0.4). On regression, base excess and penetrating injury were independent predictors of mortality but not patient residential status. Conclusion: Use and survival of DCL for patients with severe abdominal trauma was similar between trauma centers in HIC and MIC settings despite increased penetrating trauma and less transfusion in the MIC center. While the results overall suggest no gap in care for patients requiring DCL in this MIC, it highlights improvements that can be made in damage control resuscitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]