Pancreatic injury in damage control laparotomies: Is pancreatic resection safe during the initial laparotomy?

OBJECTIVES: While damage control (DC) techniques such as the rapid control of exsanguinating haemorrhage and gastrointestinal contamination have improved survival in severely injured patients, the optimal pancreatic injury management strategy in these critically injured patients requiring DC is uncertain. We sought to characterise pancreatic injury patterns and outcomes to better determine optimal initial operative management in the DC population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-centre, retrospective review of all patients who sustained pancreatic injury requiring DC in two urban trauma centres during 1997-2004 revealed 42 patients. Demographics and clinical characteristics were analysed. Study groups based on operative management (pack+/-drain vs. resection) were compared with respect to clinical characteristics and hospital outcomes. RESULTS: The 42 patients analysed were primarily young (32.8+/-16.2 years) males (38/42, 90.5%) who suffered penetrating (30/42, 71.5%) injuries of the pancreas and other abdominal organs (41/42, 97.6%). Of the 12 patients who underwent an initial pancreatic resection (11 distal pancreatectomies, 1 pancreaticoduodenectomy), all distal pancreatectomies were performed in entirety during the initial laparotomy while pancreaticoduodenectomy reconstruction was delayed until subsequent laparotomy. Comparing the pack+/-drain and resection groups, no difference in mechanism, vascular injury, shock, ISS, or complications was revealed. Mortality was substantial (packing only, 70%; packing with drainage, 25%, distal pancreatectomy, 55%, pancreaticoduodenectomy, 0%) in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of shock or major vascular injury dictates the extent of pancreatic operative intervention. While pancreatic resection may be required in selected damage control patients, packing with pancreatic drainage effectively controls both haemorrhage and abdominal contamination in patients with life-threatening physiological parameters and may lead to improved survival. Increased mortality rates in patients who were packed without drainage suggest that packing without drainage is ineffective and should be abandoned.

The invisible trauma patient: emergency department discharges.

BACKGROUND: As the malpractice and financial environment has changed, injured patients evaluated by the trauma team and discharged from the emergency department (ED) are now commonplace. The evaluation, care, and disposition of this population has become a significant workload component but is not reported to accrediting organizations and is relatively invisible to hospital administrators. Our objective was to quantify and begin to qualify the evolving picture of the trauma ED discharge population as a work component of trauma service function in an urban, Level I trauma center with an aeromedical program. METHODS: Trauma registry (contacts, mechanism, transport, injuries, and disposition) and hospital databases (ED closure, occupancy rates) were queried for a 5-year period (1999-2003). Trend analysis provided statistical comparisons for questions of interest. RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, the total number of trauma contacts rose by 18.1% (2,220 in 1999 vs. 2,622 in 2003; trend p < 0.05). This increase in total contacts was not a manifestation of an increase in admissions (1,672 in 1999 vs. 1,544 in 2003) but rather a reflection of a marked increase in patients seen primarily by the trauma team and discharged from the ED (473 in 1999 vs. 1,000 in 2003; trend p < 0.05). These ED discharge patients were increasingly transported by helicopter (12.3% in 1999 vs. 29.2% in 2003; trend p < 0.05) and less frequently from urban areas (57.1% in 1999 vs. 48.1% in 2003; trend p < 0.05) over the course of the study period. Average injury severity of this group increased over the study period (Injury Severity Score of 2.7 +/- 0.1 in 1999 vs. 3.3 +/- 0.1 in 2003; trend p < 0.05). ED length of stay for this group increased 19.8% over the study period (trend p < 0.05), averaging nearly 5 hours in 2003. CONCLUSION: The total number, relative percentage, and injury severity of patients evaluated by the trauma team and discharged from the ED has significantly increased over the last 5 years, representing nearly 5,000 patient care hours in 2003. Systems to care for these patients in a cost- and resource-efficient fashion should be put in place. The impact of this growing population of patients on the workload of the trauma center should be recognized by accrediting agencies, hospital administration, and Emergency Medical Services.

Integrating emergency general surgery with a trauma service: impact on the care of injured patients.

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable discussion on the national level on the future of trauma surgery as a specialty. One of the leading directions for the field is the integration of emergency general surgery as a wider and more attractive scope of practice. However, there is currently no information on how the addition of an emergency general surgery practice will affect the care of injured patients. We hypothesized that the care of trauma patients would be negatively affected by adding emergency general surgery responsibilities to a trauma service. METHODS: Our institution underwent a system change in August 2001, where an emergency general surgery (ES) practice was added to an established trauma service. The ES practice included emergency department and in-house consultations for all urgent surgical problems except thoracic and vascular diseases. There were no trauma staff changes during the study period. Trauma registry data (demographics, injuries, injury severity, and procedures) and performance improvement data (peer-review judgments for all identified errors, denied days, audit filters, and deaths) were abstracted for two 15-month periods surrounding this system change. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and t tests provided between-group comparisons. RESULTS: The trauma staff evaluated a total of 5,874 patients during the 30-month study. There were 1,400 (51%) trauma admissions in the pre-ES group and 1,504 (48%) in the post-ES group, of which 1,278 and 1,434, respectively, met severity criteria for report to our statewide database (Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study [PTOS]). There were 163 (12.7% of PTOS) deaths in the pre-ES group compared with 171 (11.9% PTOS) deaths in the post-ES group (p = not significant [NS]). There was one death determined to be preventable by the peer review process for the pre-ES group, and none in the post-ES group. Both groups had 10 potentially preventable deaths, with the remaining mortalities being categorized as nonpreventable (p = NS). Unexpected deaths by TRISS methodology were 36 (2.8%) and 41 (2.9%) for the two groups, respectively (p = NS). There was no difference in the number of provider-specific complications between the groups (23, [1.8%] vs. 19 [1.3%], p = NS). The addition of emergency surgery has resulted in an additional average daily workload of 1.3 cases and 1.2 admissions. CONCLUSION: Despite an increase in trauma volume over the study period, the addition of emergency surgery to a trauma service did not affect the care of injured patients. The concept of adding emergency surgery responsibilities to trauma surgeons appears to be a valid way to increase operative experience without compromising care of the injured patient.

Redefining the future of trauma surgery as a comprehensive trauma and emergency general surgery service.

BACKGROUND: Dwindling operative opportunities in trauma care may have a detrimental impact on career satisfaction among trauma surgeons and on career attractiveness to surgical trainees. Addition of emergency general surgery may alleviate some of these concerns. STUDY DESIGN: The trauma service at our institution incorporated nontrauma emergency general surgery over a 3-year period. The institution's trauma registry and hospital perioperative database were queried. The changes in operative caseload are described. Current trauma faculty anonymously completed a Web-based questionnaire about the addition of emergency general surgery to the trauma service. RESULTS: Operations for trauma decreased in 2002 compared with 1999, despite a higher number of penetrating injuries and total trauma contacts. Nontrauma general surgery operations performed by trauma faculty increased in proportion to coverage provided by the trauma service. In 2002, 57% of all cases performed by trauma surgeons were emergency general surgery, which accounted for 32% to 74% of an individual surgeon's caseload. In anonymously completed Web-based questionnaires, current trauma faculty expressed satisfaction with the combined trauma and emergency general surgery model. CONCLUSIONS: The combined trauma and nontrauma surgery service increased operative caseloads and improved satisfaction of trauma surgeons. A comprehensive trauma and emergency general surgery service may be an attractive model for the future of trauma surgery and provide logistical and medical advantages to the emergency general surgery patient population.

Nonoperative management of abdominal gunshot wounds.

Mandatory surgical exploration for gunshot wounds to the abdomen has been a surgical dictum for the greater part of this past century. Although nonoperative management of blunt solid organ injuries and low-energy penetrating injuries such as stab wounds is well established, the same is not true for gunshot wounds. The vast majority of patients who sustain a gunshot injury to the abdomen require immediate laparotomy to control bleeding and contain contamination. Nonoperative treatment of patients with a gunshot injury is gaining acceptance in only a highly selected subset of hemodynamically stable adult patients without peritonitis. Although the physical examination remains the cornerstone in the evaluation of patients with gunshot injury, other techniques such as computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, and laparoscopy allow accurate determination of intra-abdominal injury. The ability to exclude internal organ injury nonoperatively avoids the potential complications of unnecessary laparotomy. Clinical data to support selective nonoperative management of certain gunshot injuries to the abdomen are accumulating, but the approach has risks and requires careful collaborative management by emergency physicians and surgeons experienced in the care of penetrating injury.

Training in trauma surgery: quantitative and qualitative aspects of a new paradigm for fellowship.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes from a clinical trauma surgical education program that places the board-eligible/board-certified fellow in the role of the attending surgeon (fellow-in-exception [FIE]) during the latter half of a 2-year trauma/surgical critical care fellowship. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: National discussions have begun to explore the question of optimal methods for postresidency training in surgery. Few objective studies are available to evaluate current training models. METHODS: We analyzed provider-specific data from both our trauma registry and performance improvement (PI) databases. In addition, we performed TRISS analysis when all data were available. Registry and PI data were analyzed as 2 groups (faculty trauma surgeons and FIEs) to determine experience, safety, and trends in errors. We also surveyed graduate fellows using a questionnaire that evaluated perceptions of training and experience on a 6-point Likert scale. RESULTS: During a 4-year period 7,769 trauma patients were evaluated, of which 46.3% met criteria to be submitted to the PA Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS, ie, more severe injury). The faculty group saw 5,885 patients (2,720 PTOS); the FIE group saw 1,884 patients (879 PTOS). The groups were similar in respect to mechanism of injury (74% blunt; 26% penetrating both groups) and injury severity (mean ISS faculty 10.0; FIEs 9.5). When indexed to patient contacts, FIEs did more operations than the faculty group (28.4% versus 25.6%; P < 0.05). Death rates were similar between groups (faculty 10.5%; FIEs 10.0%). Analysis of deaths using PI and TRISS data failed to demonstrate differences between the groups. Analysis of provider-specific errors demonstrated a slightly higher rate for FIEs when compared with faculty when indexed to PTOS cases (4.1% versus 2.1%; P < 0.01). For both groups, errors in management were more common than errors in technique. Twenty-one (91%) of twenty-three surveys were returned. Fellows' feelings of preparedness to manage complex trauma patients improved during the fellowship (mean 3.2 prior to fellowship versus 4.5 after first year versus 5.8 after FIE year; P < 0.05 by ANOVA). Eighty percent rated the FIE educational experience "great -5" or "exceptional- 6." Eighty-five percent consider the current structure of the fellowship (with FIE year) as ideal. Ninety percent would repeat the fellowship. CONCLUSION: The educational experience and training improvement offered by the inclusion of a FIE period during a trauma fellowship is exceptional. Patient outcomes are unchanged. The potential for an increased error rate is present during this period of clinical autonomy and must be addressed when designing the methods of supervision of care to assure concurrent senior staff review.