Search

Background: Emergency thoracotomy is a potentially life-saving maneuver for trauma patients in extremis. Since trauma scenarios, in rural locations, usually occur with a high incidence of a severe injury that leads to hemorrhagic shock or cardiopulmonary arrest. The objective of this study was to analyze the experience in emergency thoracotomy performed by a general surgeon in a rural area in Thailand. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted by analyzing the patient records including demographics, mechanisms of injuries, specific organ injury, surgical approach, life-saving surgical procedure, and postoperative outcome for all patients who underwent emergency thoracotomy in the Department of Surgery, Srinakharinwirot University hospital between January 2010 and December 2020. Results: Twelve patients underwent emergency thoracotomy within 1 hour after arrival and were equally divided between blunt and penetrating injuries with 6 (50%). A mean patient age of 34.8 ± 15.2 years (range 16-55), mean systolic blood pressure on arrival was 65.8 ± 35.2 mmHg (range 0-100 mmHg), and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 54.6 ± 25.2 (range 26-75). Profound hemorrhagic shock is a major indication for emergency thoracotomy. The overall survival rate was 41.7% (5/12 patients) without survivors from cardiac injuries. Four patients (66.7%) in the penetrating and 1 patient (16.7%) in the blunt intrathoracic injury group were survived and discharged from the hospital. Conclusion: Emergency thoracotomy offers a chance for survival at 41.7% for trauma patients who present with extremes in this study. Rapid decision-making, good operative technique, and adequate patient selection are crucial for reasonable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Abdominal vascular injuries (AVIs) remain a great challenge since they are associated with significant mortality. Penetrating injury is the most common cause of AVIs; however, some AVI series had more blunt injuries. There is little information regarding differences between penetrating and blunt AVIs. The objective of the present study was to identify the differences between these two mechanisms in civilian AVI patients in terms of patient's characteristics, injury details, and outcomes.Method: From January 2007 to January 2016, we retrospectively collected the data of AVI patients at King Chulalongkorn Memorial hospital, including demographic data, details of injury, the operative managements, and outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality. The comparison of the data between blunt and penetrating AVI patients was performed.Results: There were 55 AVI patients (28 blunt and 27 penetrating). Majority (78%) of the patients in both groups were in shock on arrival. Blunt AVI patients had significantly higher injury severity score (mean(SD) ISS, 36(20) vs. 25(9), p = 0.019) and more internal iliac artery injuries (8 vs. 1, p = 0.028). On the other hand, penetrating AVI patients had more aortic injuries (5 vs. 0, p = 0.046), and inferior vena cava injuries (7 vs. 0, p = 0.009). Damage control surgery (DCS) was performed in 45 patients (82%), 25 in blunt and 20 in penetrating. The overall mortality rate was 40% (50% in blunt vs. 30% in penetrating, p = 0.205).Conclusions: Blunt AVI patients had higher ISS and more internal iliac artery injuries, while penetrating AVI patients had more aortic injuries and vena cava injuries. Majority of AVI patients in both groups presented with shock and required DCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]