Search

Background: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur., Methods: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy)., Results: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA., Conclusion: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: America's aging population has led to an increase in the number of elderly patients necessitating emergency general surgery. Previous studies have demonstrated that increased frailty is a predictor of outcomes in medicine and surgical patients. We hypothesized that use of a modification of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index would be a predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients older than 60 years undergoing emergency general surgery., Methods: Data were obtained from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files database in compliance with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data Use Agreement. We selected all emergency cases in patients older than 60 years performed by general surgeons from 2005 to 2009. The effect of increasing frailty on multiple outcomes including wound infection, wound occurrence, any infection, any occurrence, and mortality was then evaluated., Results: Total sample size was 35,334 patients. As the modified frailty index increased, associated increases occurred in wound infection, wound occurrence, any infection, any occurrence, and mortality. Logistic regression of multiple variables demonstrated that the frailty index was associated with increased mortality with an odds ratio of 11.70 (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Frailty index is an important predictive variable in emergency general surgery patients older than 60 years. The modified frailty index can be used to evaluate risk of both morbidity and mortality in these patients. Frailty index will be a valuable preoperative risk assessment tool for the acute care surgeon., Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, level II., (Copyright © 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)

Background: Few good surgical options exist for the repair of complex anterior abdominal wall defects, particularly those in which bacterial contamination is present. The use of prosthetic mesh increases complication rates when the mesh is placed directly over viscera or when the surgical site is contaminated from a pre-existing infection or enteric spillage. The use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM), which becomes vascularized and remodeled into autologous tissue after implantation, may represent a low-morbidity alternative to prosthetic mesh products in these complex settings. This study examined our experience with ADM in the reconstruction of contaminated abdominal wall defects., Methods: Patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstructions in the face of contamination with ADM between May 2002 and December 2005 underwent retrospective chart review. Demographics, indications for ADM placement, plane of implantation, complications, and follow-up data were evaluated., Results: Sixty-seven patients were identified. The indications for ADM placement included incarcerated hernias, infected mesh, fistulae, early/delayed abdominal wall reconstruction after intra-abdominal catastrophe or trauma, dehiscence/evisceration, and spillage of enteric contents. The ADM was positioned either above the fascia or beneath the fascia or was sutured directly to the fascial edges. Sixteen patients developed a wound infection; the majority of these were superficial and required only local wound care, 5 required some further surgical intervention, and 2 required removal of the ADM. Twelve patients developed recurrent hernias. The mean follow-up time for the study population was 10.6 months., Conclusions: ADM can be used safely and effectively as an alternative to traditional mesh products for abdominal wall reconstructions, even in the setting of contaminated fields.

We undertook this retrospective review to examine the appropriateness of a protocol for the selective emergency department (ED) workup of asymptomatic penetrating truncal injuries. Records of consecutive patients presenting to our urban Level I trauma center with penetrating truncal injuries between January 1, 1997 and September 2000 were reviewed. Data obtained included: patient demographics, ED workup, ED disposition, complications, and follow-up. Selective ED workup included hospital triple-contrast CT, admission for observation, and local wound exploration for selected anterior abdominal stab wounds. Four hundred fifty-five patients presented with penetrating truncal wounds during the study period. One hundred ninety-four patients were taken directly to the operating room, 136 were discharged based solely on physical examination and plain radiographs, 18 were admitted for observation without ED workup, and 107 had selective ED workup. Sixty-two patients (58% of those selectively worked up) were discharged home after negative ED workup, 18 were managed operatively, and 27 were managed nonoperatively. There were two missed injuries that were later identified and managed with no complications. Follow-up was available on 66 per cent of ED workup patients (range 1-42 months). We conclude that selective management of certain penetrating truncal injuries appears appropriate. Patients having a negative selective ED workup can be safely discharged thereby avoiding the cost and resource utilization associated with hospital admission.

With decreasing violent crime and an increase in the use of nonoperative management techniques the viability of urban trauma centers has come into question. In addition the workload and productivity for surgeons at such centers may be threatened. The current study examines the changing characteristics of patients admitted to an urban Level I trauma center over a 5-year period and examines factors that may affect trauma surgeon utilization. We reviewed all trauma registry admissions from January 1995 through December 1999. Data were collected regarding patient demographics, mechanism of injury, diagnostic workup, injury character and severity, operative procedures, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and patient disposition. Admissions declined 23 per cent over the 5-year period. Fewer patients were admitted to general practice units whereas more patients required ICU admission. Over the study period both mean patient age and mean Injury Severity Score increased significantly. Gunshot wound admissions declined by 45 per cent, but the percentage of those admitted who required operation rose 17 per cent. Number of operations for trauma performed by general surgeons was unchanged over time. Hospital LOS declined over time, and ICU LOS was unchanged. Although trauma center admissions--particularly those due to violent crime--are on the decline the operative productivity of trauma surgeons has remained unchanged. Patients admitted to the hospital are older and more severely injured; they undeniably require a higher level of care and service coordination. Urban trauma centers remain viable and are in fact more efficient in caring for sicker patients.

The debate over the use of diagnostic angiography (DA) to exclude arterial injury in penetrating extremity trauma (PET) continues. This review evaluates our current protocol for PET and identifies indications for DA. Patients presenting to our urban Level I trauma center between January 1997 and September 2000 with PET were included. Demographic data, emergency department (ED) course, and patient follow-up were reviewed. ED evaluation directed by physical examination (PE) included Doppler pressure indices (DPI) and DA if indicated. A total of 538 patients had PET injuries. Twenty (4%) patients with hard signs of vascular injury were taken to the operating room. Ninety-one (17%) patients without vascular compromise underwent operative procedures or were admitted for other injuries. One hundred twenty-three (23%) patients with nonproximity wounds were discharged. Four DAs were performed for abnormal DPI with no change in management. Three hundred patients with a negative PE and normal DPI were discharged from the ED. Follow-up was available on 51 per cent of these patients (range 1-49 months) with no missed injuries identified. We conclude that PE with DPI is an appropriate way to identify significant vascular injuries from PET. Patients with normal PE and DPI can be safely discharged. DA is only indicated for asymptomatic patients with abnormal DPI.