The tight rope act: A multicenter regional experience of tourniquets in acute trauma resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: As tourniquets have become more prevalent, device use has been questioned. This study sought to characterize the incidence, indication, and efficacy of tourniquet placement in acute trauma resuscitation. METHODS: Nine regional level 1 trauma centers prospectively enrolled for 12 months adult patients (18 years or older) who had a tourniquet placed. Age, sex, mechanism, tourniquet type, indication, applying personnel, location placed, level of occlusion, and degree of hemostasis were collected. Major vascular injury, imaging and operations performed, and outcomes were assessed. Analyses were performed with significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 216 tourniquet applications were reported on 209 patients. There were significantly more male patients (183 [88%]) and penetrating injuries (186 [89%]) with gunshots being most common (127 [61%]). Commercial tourniquets were most often used (205 [95%]). Ninety-two percent were placed in the prehospital setting (by fire/paramedics, 56%; police, 33%; bystanders, 2%). The most common indications were pooling (47%) and pulsatile (32%) hemorrhage. Only 2% were for amputation. The most frequent location was high proximal extremity (70%). Four percent were placed over the wound, and 0.5% were distal to the wound. Only 61% of applications were arterial occlusive. Median application time was 30 minutes (interquartile range, 20-40 minutes). Imaging was performed in 54% of patients. Overall, 36% had a named arterial injury. Tourniquet application failed to achieve hemostasis in 22% of patients with a named vascular injury. There was no difference in hemostasis between those with and without vascular injury (p = 0.12) or between who placed the tourniquet (p = 0.07). Seventy patients (34%) required vascular operations. Thirty-four percent of patients were discharged home without admission. CONCLUSION: Discerning which injuries require tourniquets over pressure dressings remains elusive. Trained responders had high rates of superfluous and inadequate deployments. As tourniquets continue to be disseminated, emphasis should be placed on improving education, device development, and quality control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, Level III.

Socioeconomic factors and parity of access to robotic surgery in a county health system.

Equal access to novel surgical technologies remains a policy concern as hospitals adopt robotic surgery with increasing prevalence. This study sought to determine whether socioeconomic factors influence access to robotic surgery. All laparoscopic and robotic fundoplications and paraesophageal hernia repairs performed by a surgical group over 6 years at a county and two neighboring private hospitals were identified. Robotic use by hospital setting, age, gender, reported ethnicity, estimated income, insurance payer, and diagnosis were examined. Of 418 patients identified, 180 (43%) presented to the county hospital, where subjects were younger (51.1 versus 56.2 years, p < 0.001) with lower estimated income ($50,289 versus $62,959, p < 0.001). In the county setting, there was no difference in reported ethnicity (p = 0.169), estimated income (p = 0.081), or insurance payer (p = 0.535) between groups treated laparoscopically versus robotically. There was no difference in the treatment groups by estimated income in the private hospital setting (p = 0.308). Overall higher estimated income and insurance payer were associated with a higher chance of undergoing robotic procedures (p < 0.001). Presence of a paraesophageal hernia was associated with increased chance of undergoing robotic therapy in all comparisons (p < 0.001). No disparity in access to robotic surgery offered in the county hospital was observed based on age, gender, reported ethnicity, estimated income, or insurance payer. Patients with higher income and private insurers were more likely to present to the private hospital setting where robotics is utilized more often. The presence of a paraesophageal hernia was a significant factor in determining robotic therapy in both settings.

Traumatic colon injury in damage control laparotomy-A multicenter trial: Is it safe to do a delayed anastomosis?

BACKGROUND: Delayed colonic anastomosis after damage control laparotomy (DCL) is an alternative to colostomies during a single laparotomy (SL) in high-risk patients. However, literature suggests increased colonic leak rates up to 27% with DCL, and various reported risk factors. We evaluated our regional experience to determine if delayed colonic anastomosis was associated with worse outcomes. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed across three Level I trauma centers encompassing traumatic colon injuries from January 2006 through June 2014. Patients with rectal injuries or mortality within 24 hours were excluded. Patient and injury characteristics, complications, and interventions were compared between SL and DCL groups. Regional readmission data were utilized to capture complications within 6 months of index trauma. RESULTS: Of 267 patients, 69% had penetrating injuries, 21% underwent DCL, and the mortality rate was 4.9%. Overall, 176 received primary repair (26 in DCL), 90 had resection and anastomosis (28 in DCL), and 26 had a stoma created (10 end colostomies and 2 loop ileostomies in DCL). Thirty-five of 56 DCL patients had definitive colonic repair subsequent to their index operation. DCL patients were more likely to be hypotensive; require more resuscitation; and suffer acute kidney injury, pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome, and death. Five enteric leaks (1.9%) and three enterocutaneous fistulas (ECF, 1.1%) were identified, proportionately distributed between DCL and SL (p = 1.00, p = 0.51). No difference was seen in intraperitoneal abscesses (p = 0.13) or surgical site infections (SSI, p = 0.70) between cohorts. Among SL patients, pancreas injuries portended an increased risk of intraperitoneal abscesses (p = 0.0002), as did liver injuries in DCL patients (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: DCL was not associated with increased enteric leaks, ECF, SSI, or intraperitoneal abscesses despite nearly two-thirds having delayed repair. Despite this being a multicenter study, it is underpowered, and a prospective trial would better demonstrate risks of DCL in colon trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.