Search

Objectives: Penetrating abdominal aortic injury (PAAI) is a highly acute injury requiring prompt surgical management. When compared to surgeons at level-II trauma centers, surgeons at level-I trauma centers are more likely to take in-house call, and may more often be available within 15 minutes of patient arrival. Thus, we hypothesized that level-I trauma centers would have a lower mortality rate than level-II trauma centers in patients with PAAI. Methods: We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database for patients with PAAI, and compared patients treated at American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified level-I centers to those treated at ACS level-II centers. Results: PAAI was identified in 292 patients treated at level-I centers and 86 patients treated at level-II centers. Patients treated at the 2 center types had similar median age, injury severity scores and prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the frequency of additional intra-abdominal vascular injuries (p > 0.05). Median time to hemorrhage control (level-I: 40.8 vs level-II: 49.2 minutes, p = 0.21) was similar between hospitals at the 2 trauma center levels. We found no difference in the total hospital length of stay or post-operative complications (p > 0.05). When controlling for covariates, we found no difference in the risk of mortality between ACS verified level-I and level-II trauma centers (OR:1.01, CI:0.28-2.64, p = 0.99). Conclusion: Though the majority of PAAIs are treated at level-I trauma centers, we found no difference in the time to hemorrhage control, or the risk of mortality in those treated at level-I centers when compared to those treated at level-II trauma centers. This finding reinforces the ACS-verification process, which strives to achieve similar outcomes between level-I and level-II centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evaluation and management of patients with abdominal vascular trauma or injury requires immediate and effective decision-making in these unfavorable circumstances. The majority of these patients arrive at trauma centers in profound shock, secondary to massive blood loss, which is often unrelenting. Moreover, ischemia, compartment syndrome, thrombosis, and embolization may also be life threatening and require immediate intervention. To minimize the risk of these potentially lethal complications, early understanding of the disease process and emergent therapeutic intervention are necessary. In the literature, the management of acute traumatic vascular injuries is restricted to traditional open surgical techniques. However, in penetrating injuries surgeons often face a potentially contaminated field, which renders the placement of prosthetic grafts inappropriate. Currently, however, there are sparse data on the management of vascular trauma with endovascular techniques. The role of endovascular technique in penetrating abdominal vascular trauma, which is almost always associated with severe active bleeding, is limited. It is worth mentioning that hybrid operating rooms with angiographic radiology capabilities offer more opportunities for the management of this kind of injuries by either temporary control of the devastating bleeding using endovascular balloon tamponade or with embolization and stenting. On the other hand, blunt abdominal injuries are less dangerous and they could be treated at most times by endovascular means. Since surgeons continue to encounter abdominal vascular trauma, open and endovascular techniques will evolve constantly giving us encouraging messages for the near future.

During lumbar disc hernia operations, large intra-abdominal injuries may develop, even though they are rare. Massive bleeding and hypotension are precursors of this complication, which often has a mortal prognosis. In this circumstance, emergent operation should be performed by laparotomy. We present a case in whom an abdominal aortic injury developed during lumbar disc surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]