ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Emergency surgical repair is the standard approach to the management of an incarcerated abdominal wall hernia (IAWH). In cases of very high-risk patients, manual closed reduction (MCR) of IAWH may prevent the need for emergency surgery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, success rate, and complications of MCR in the management of IAWH conducted in an emergency department. METHODS: The data of all patients who underwent MCR between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively collected. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, clinical parameters, and management during the hospitalization were retrieved from the medical charts. RESULTS: Overall, 548 patients underwent MCR during the study period. The success rate was 25.4% (139 patients). One patient had a complication that required a laparotomy 2 days after his discharge. A recurrent incarceration occurred in 23%, 60% of them underwent successful repeated MCR and the others underwent emergency surgery. Six patients (1.4%) had a bowel perforation after a failed MCR. CONCLUSIONS: MCR can be performed safely in the emergency department and should be consider as an option to treat IAWH, especially in high operative risk patients.
Subject(s)
Hernia, Abdominal , Herniorrhaphy , Intestinal Perforation , Laparotomy , Postoperative Complications , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hernia, Abdominal/complications , Hernia, Abdominal/diagnosis , Hernia, Abdominal/epidemiology , Hernia, Abdominal/surgery , Herniorrhaphy/adverse effects , Herniorrhaphy/methods , Herniorrhaphy/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intestinal Perforation/diagnosis , Intestinal Perforation/etiology , Intestinal Perforation/surgery , Israel/epidemiology , Laparotomy/adverse effects , Laparotomy/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/surgery , Reoperation/methods , Reoperation/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Extra peritoneal packing (EPP) is a quick and highly effective method to control pelvic hemorrhage. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether EPP can be as safely and efficiently performed in the emergency department (ED) as in the operating room (OR). METHODS: Retrospective study of 29 patients who underwent EPP in the ED or OR in two trauma centers in Israel 2008-2018. RESULTS: Our study included 29 patients, 13 in the ED-EPP group and 16 in the OR-EPP group. The mean injury severity score (ISS) was 34.9 ± 11.8. Following EPP, hemodynamic stability was successfully achieved in 25 of 29 patients (86.2%). A raise in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) with a median of 25 mmHg (mean 30.0 ± 27.5, P < 0.001) was documented. All patients who did not achieve hemodynamic stability after EPP had multiple sources of bleeding or fatal head injury and eventually succumbed. Patients who underwent EPP in the ED showed higher change in MAP (P = 0.0458). The overall mortality rate was 27.5% (8/29) with no difference between the OR and ED-EPP. No differences were found between ED and OR-EPP in the amount of transfused blood products, surgical site infections, and length of stay in the hospital. However, patients who underwent ED-EPP were more prone to develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT): 50% (5/10) vs. 9% (1/11) in ED and OR-EPP groups respectively (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: EPP is equally effective when performed in the ED or OR with similar surgical site infection rates but higher incidence of DVT.
Subject(s)
Exsanguination , Fractures, Bone , Hemostasis, Surgical , Pelvis , Postoperative Complications , Surgical Wound Infection , Venous Thrombosis , Blood Pressure Determination/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Exsanguination/diagnosis , Exsanguination/etiology , Exsanguination/mortality , Exsanguination/surgery , Female , Fractures, Bone/complications , Fractures, Bone/diagnosis , Fractures, Bone/surgery , Hemostasis, Surgical/adverse effects , Hemostasis, Surgical/instrumentation , Hemostasis, Surgical/methods , Humans , Injury Severity Score , Israel/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Pelvis/diagnostic imaging , Pelvis/injuries , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Surgical Wound Infection/diagnosis , Surgical Wound Infection/etiology , Trauma Centers/statistics & numerical data , Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis , Venous Thrombosis/etiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of patients who experienced major trauma. Prevention of VTE is usually by thrombophylaxis and or by the use of a retrievable filter. Lately, the use of a retrievable filter in trauma patients has increased despite evidence cautioning against its use. AIMS: To evaluate complications related to a single type of filter prophylactically used in a tertiary trauma center and search for risk factors that may preclude filter retrieval METHODS: 142 patients aged 16 through 60 who experienced a major trauma and were treated with a prophylactic IVC filter of type optease were evaluated. RESULTS: The median time from trauma to filter insertion was 2days and low molecular weight heparin at prophylactic dose was initiated in 92% once the filter was inserted. Nine patients developed IVC thrombosis and one of them died despite the use of thrombolytic therapy. Another 8 patients developed lower extremities deep vein thrombosis. The filter was left in place in 13 more patients after attempted filter removal was unsuccessful. Among patients with successful removal, the median dwelling time was 30days. There was no relationship between successful removal and age, sex, BMI, Glasgow coma scale, or injury severity score of patients when first evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Of concern is the persistent complications related to IVC filter even with the prophylactic use of anticoagulants and the dose of radiation trauma patients were exposed during insertion and retrieval of filter. Thus, the routine use of IVC filter in trauma patients may not be desirable.
