Approaches to Repair of Penetrating Injuries of the Proximal, Mid, and Distal Esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic esophageal injuries represent less than 10% of traumatic injuries. Penetrating injuries represent an even smaller but more lethal percent. Esophageal injuries can be cervical, thoracic, or abdominal with decreasing frequency. Cervical and thoracic esophageal injuries represent >80% of these injuries and are more morbid. Morbidity and mortality are increased with delayed identification. Although diagnosis can be hard, management is similar despite location. CASES: We present 3 cases of esophageal injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and abdominal esophageal segments with descriptions on diagnosis, repair, and management differences. DISCUSSION: Despite low incidence of penetrating esophageal injuries, morbidity and mortality are extremely high, especially with associated injuries. Early identification and treatment is paramount. Anatomical knowledge is necessary for successful surgical management. Primary repair in 2 layers should be attempted whenever possible including musical closure with absorbable suture. Flaps, diversions, wide drainage, and feeding tube access should always be key surgical considerations. Flaps can include sternocleidomastoid muscle for cervical injuries, intercostal muscle, diaphragm, and pericardium for thoracic injuries and "Thal" gastric flaps for gastroesophageal junction and abdominal injuries. Successful identification and management can lead to increased survival.

A multicenter trial of current trends in the diagnosis and management of high-grade pancreatic injuries.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes following pancreatic trauma have not improved significantly over the past two decades. A 2013 Western Trauma Association algorithm highlighted emerging data that might improve the diagnosis and management of high-grade pancreatic injuries (HGPIs; grades III-V). We hypothesized that the use of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, pancreatic duct stenting, operative drainage versus resection, and nonoperative management of HGPIs increased over time. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018 was performed. Data were analyzed by grade and time period (PRE, 2010-2013; POST, 2014-2018) using various statistical tests where appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-two centers reported data on 515 HGPI patients. A total of 270 (53%) had penetrating trauma, and 58% went directly to the operating room without imaging. Eighty-nine (17%) died within 24 hours. Management and outcomes of 426 24-hour survivors were evaluated. Agreement between computed tomography and operating room grading was 38%. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography use doubled in grade IV/V injuries over time but was still low.Overall HGPI treatment and outcomes did not change over time. Resection was performed in 78% of grade III injuries and remained stable over time, while resection of grade IV/V injuries trended downward (56% to 39%, p = 0.11). Pancreas-related complications (PRCs) occurred more frequently in grade IV/V injuries managed with drainage versus resection (61% vs. 32%, p = 0.0051), but there was no difference in PRCs for grade III injuries between resection and drainage.Pancreatectomy closure had no impact on PRCs. Pancreatic duct stenting increased over time in grade IV/V injuries, with 76% used to treat PRCs. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative and computed tomography grading are different in the majority of HGPI cases. Resection is still used for most patients with grade III injuries; however, drainage may be a noninferior alternative. Drainage trended upward for grade IV/V injuries, but the higher rate of PRCs calls for caution in this practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective diagnostic/therapeutic study, level III.