Penetrating colon trauma-the effect of concomitant small bowel injury on outcome.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited evidence to suggest that patients with penetrating colon injury have higher complication rates when there is concomitant small bowel (SB) injury. AIM: We performed a retrospective study looking at outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in patients with- and without concomitant SB injury. METHODS: We interrogated our electronic registry over an eight-year period (2012-2020) for all patients over 18 years who had sustained penetrating colon injury and who had survived beyond 72 h. Demographic data, admission physiology, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were recorded. Two groups of patients were observed: those with colonic injury (no SB injury) and those with combined colon and SB injury. Outcomes observed included leak rates, length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were eligible for analysis, of which 257 had colon injury without SB injury and 193 had a combination of colon and SB injury. There was no difference in mechanism of injury between groups. Admission physiology was similar between groups but arterial blood gas values were worse in the combined group. Rates of damage control surgery and ICU admission were higher in the combined group. Primary repair was done in equal proportions between groups but anastomosis was more frequently performed in the combined group. There was no difference in complication rates, including gastro-intestinal complications and suture line leaks. Length of ICU stay, LOS, and mortality were similar between groups. Univariable analysis demonstrated that the presence of concomitant small bowel injury was not an independent risk factor for colonic suture line failure or death. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from this data that the presence of a combined penetrating colon and SB injury should change management priorities. Each injury should be treated on its own merit, in the context of the patient's physiology.

Penetrating colonic trauma and damage control surgery: Anastomosis or stoma?

BACKGROUND: The management of colon injuries in damage control surgery (DCS) remains controversial. METHODS: A retrospective study investigating outcomes of penetrating colonic trauma in patients who survived beyond the initial repeat laparotomy (IRL) after DCS was performed. Patients over 18 years with penetrating colon injury and who underwent DCS from 2012 to 2020 were included from our electronic trauma registry. Demographic data, admission physiology and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups: primary repair of non-destructive injuries at DCL, delayed anastomosis of destructive injuries at IRL and diversion of destructive injuries at IRL. Outcomes observed included leak rates, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, morbidities, mortality and colon-related mortality. RESULTS: Out of 584 patients with penetrating colonic trauma, 89 (15%) underwent DCS. After exclusions, 74 patients were analysed. Mean age was 32.8 years (SD 12.5); 67 (91%) were male. Mechanism of injury was gunshot in 63 (85%) and stab 11 (15%) patients. Seventeen patients underwent primary repair at DCS, of which one leaked. Twenty patients underwent delayed anastomosis at IRL. Of these, five (25%) developed leaks. Mortality was significantly higher for those with an anastomotic leak compared to those without (p < 0.001). Thirty-seven patients were diverted at IRL. Overall mortality (p = 0.622) and colon-related mortality (p = 0.592) were not significantly different across groups. CONCLUSION: Delayed anastomosis at IRL following DCL was associated with a leak rate of 25% in this study. When anastomotic leak did occur, it was associated with significant mortality. Delayed anastomosis should only be undertaken in highly selected patients.

Prospective review of cytotoxic snakebite envenomation in a paediatric population.

Cytotoxic snakebite envenomation is prevalent in Kwazulu-Natal and may be associated with significant physical disability. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the effects of cytotoxic envenomation in children. The patient population were all patients attending the Emergency Department at Ngwelezana Tertiary Hospital with snakebite from December 2014 to March 2015. All children 13 years or younger presenting with painful progressive swelling (PPS) following snakebite were included in this study. They were further classified according to severity: mild, moderate and severe. Patient demographic and clinical data was collected prospectively. Fifty-one children were included in this study. Nine were classified as mild, 24 as moderate and 18 as severe. The median time of presentation after bite was 6 h in the mild group, 7 h in the moderate group and 12 h in the severe group. There was a positive correlation between increasing severity and INR (p=< .00001) and no correlation between WCC (p = .175) or renal function and severity (p = .963). A total of 11 children (22%) developed an acute kidney injury (AKI). A total of 23/51 patients received antivenom; 25% of patients with moderate cytotoxicity and 94% of patients with severe cytotoxicity. Thirteen percent developed allergic reactions (3/23) and 57% (13/23) anaphylaxis. A total of 15 patients underwent one or more procedures on their affected limbs. There was one recorded mortality during this period, related to severe anaphylaxis following antivenom administration. Access to healthcare for antivenom administration is often delayed and ongoing education within affected areas is advised. Whilst majority of snakebite victims can be adequately managed with basic supportive measures, early identification of severe envenomation is crucial to enable timeous antivenom administration and prevention of further complications such as compartment syndrome and loss of limb. Hypersensitivity reactions are alarmingly common following antivenom administration in children and strict protocols should be followed when administering antivenom.

Damage control or definitive repair? A retrospective review of abdominal trauma at a major trauma center in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: This study set out to review a large series of trauma laparotomies from a single center and to compare those requiring damage control surgery (DCS) with those who did not, and then to interrogate a number of anatomic and physiologic scoring systems to see which best predicted the need for DCS. METHODS: All patients over the age of 15 years undergoing a laparotomy for trauma during the period from December 2012 to December 2017 were retrieved from the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry (HEMR) at the Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Trauma Service (PMTS), South Africa. They were divided into two cohorts, namely the DCS and non-DCS cohort, based on what was recorded in the operative note. These groups were then compared in terms of demographics and spectrum of injury, as well as clinical outcome. The following scores were worked out for each patient: Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI), Injury Severity Score, Abbreviated Injury Scale-abdomen, and Abbreviated Injury Scale-chest. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were included, and 99 of these (18%) had a DCS procedure versus 463 (82%) non-DCS. The mechanism was penetrating trauma in 81% of cases (453 of 562). A large proportion of trauma victims were male (503 of 562, 90%), with a mean age of 29.5±10.8. An overall mortality rate of 32% was recorded for DCS versus 4% for non-DCS (p<0.001). In general patients requiring DCS had higher lactate, and were more acidotic, hypotensive, tachycardic, and tachypneic, with a lower base excess and lower bicarbonate, than patients not requiring DCS. The most significant organ injuries associated with DCS were liver and intra-abdominal vascular injury. The only organ injury consistently predictive across all models of the need for DCS was liver injury. Regression analysis showed that only the PATI score is significantly predictive of the need for DCS (p=0.044). A final multiple logistic regression model demonstrated a pH <7.2 to be the most predictive (p=0.001) of the need for DCS. CONCLUSION: DCS is indicated in a subset of severely injured trauma patients. A pH <7.2 is the best indicator of the need for DCS. Anatomic injuries in themselves are not predictive of the need for DCS. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Trauma registry data as a tool for comparison of practice patterns and outcomes between low- and middle-income and high-income healthcare settings.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of data-driven, risk-adjusted mortality estimates for injured children outside of high-income countries (HIC). To inform injury prevention and quality improvement efforts, an upper middle-income country (UMIC) pediatric trauma registry was compared to that of a HIC. METHODS: Clinical data, injury details, and mortality of injured children (< 18 years) hospitalized in two centers (USA and South African (SA)) from 2013 to 2017 were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses evaluated risk of mortality and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 2089 patients, SA patients had prolonged transfer times (21.1 vs 3.4 h) and were more likely referred (78.2% vs 53.9%; both p < 0.001). Penetrating injuries were more frequent in SA (23.2% vs 7.4%, p < 0.001); injury severity (9 vs 4) and shock index (0.90 vs 0.80) were greater (both p < 0.001). SA utilized cross-sectional imaging more frequently (66.4% vs 37.3%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar (1.9% SA, 1.3% USA, p = 0.31). Upon multivariable analysis, ISS > 25 [210.50 (66.0-671.0)] and penetrating injury [5.5 (1.3-23.3)] were associated with mortality, while institution [1.7 (0.7-4.2)] was not. CONCLUSIONS: Despite transfer time, the centers demonstrated comparable survival rates. Comparison of registry data can alert clinicians to problematic practice patterns, assisting initiatives to improve trauma systems.

The spectrum of injuries resulting from abdominal stab wounds with isolated omental evisceration: A South African experience.

INTRODUCTION: The spectrum of injury associated with anterior abdominal stab wounds (SWs) is well established. The literature in the specific setting of isolated omental evisceration is limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our experience of 244 consecutive patients with established indications for laparotomy over an eight year period at a major trauma centre in South Africa. RESULTS: Of the 244 patients (93% male, mean age: 27 years), 224 (92) underwent immediate laparotomy (IL). Twenty were initially observed and eventually required a laparotomy (delayed laparotomy, DL). The mean time from injury to decision for laparotomy was <3 h in 92% (224/244), <6 h in 6% (14/244), <12 h 2% (4/244) and <18 h in 1% (2/244). Ninety-eight per cent (238/244) of laparotomies were positive and 96% of the positive laparotomies (229/238) were considered therapeutic. The mostly commonly injured organ encountered on laparotomy were small bowel, stomach and colon. CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly injures encountered are intestinal and gastric. Clinicians must remain vigilant as injuries may be subtle.

Laparotomy for organ evisceration from abdominal stab wounds: A South African experience.

INTRODUCTION: Organ evisceration following abdominal stab wound (SW) is currently considered as an absolute indication for mandatory laparotomy due to the high incidence of associated intra-abdominal injuries, but literature describing the spectrum of organ injury encountered is limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our experience of 301 consecutive patients who were subjected to mandatory laparotomy over an eight-year period at a major trauma centre in South Africa. RESULTS: Of the 301 patients with organ evisceration, 92% were male (mean age: 28 years). Ninety per cent (270/301) of the laparotomies were positive (85% (229/270) therapeutic, 15% (41/270) non-therapeutic). The frequencies of eviscerated organs were small bowel (70%), large bowel (26%), and stomach 3%. Three (1%) patients had combined evisceration of more than one of the above organs. The most commonly injured organs were small bowel and large bowel. The mean length of hospital stay was nine days. Seven patients required intensive care admission. The morbidity rate was 21% and mortality was 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of injury associated with abdominal SW with organ evisceration is similar to smaller published series. Multiple organ injuries are common. The most commonly eviscerated organs were small bowel, large bowel and stomach, while the most commonly injured organs were small bowel and large bowel.