The impact of fluorescence angiography on anastomotic leak rate following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication in colorectal surgery. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography allows for real-time intraoperative evaluation of bowel perfusion. This study aimed to assess the impact of ICG on perioperative outcomes in patients treated with transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer. METHODS: Comparative study based on a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, to validate the use of ICG assessment (ICGA) during TaTME (November/2011-June/2018). The primary outcome was the clinical AL rate. The secondary outcomes included modification of proximal colonic transection, anastomotic redo, additional surgical maneuvers and surgical morbidity. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-four patients were included, 204 (71.8%) in non-ICG group and 80 (28.2%) in ICG group. No significant differences were found in patient and tumor features. Mean anastomotic height was 4.85 cm vs. 5.04 cm (p = 0.500), diverting stoma was constructed in 205 patients (72.1% vs. 72.5%; p = 0.941). Fluorescence angiography modified the surgical plan in 23 patients (28.7%). AL was diagnosed in 23 patients (11.3%) in the non-ICG group and in two patients (2.5%) in the ICG group (p = 0.020). Postoperative intraabdominal collection was diagnosed in 19 patients (7.4% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.490), and reintervention was needed in 24 patients (10.8% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.420). Median length of hospital stay was 6.0 (IQR 5.0-9) vs. 4.0 (IQR 3.0-8.5) (p = 0.005). ICGA was found as independent protective factor for AL in the multivariate analysis of the whole cohort (n = 284) (OR 0.142; 95% CI 0.032-0.633; p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: ICG fluorescence angiography modified the proximal colonic transection in more than one-quarter of patients, leading to a significant decrease of AL rate.

Associated thoracic injury in patients with a clavicle fracture: a retrospective analysis of 1461 polytrauma patients.

PURPOSE: During primary survey the main goal is to ascertain life-threatening injuries. A chest X-ray is recommended in all polytrauma patients as thoracic injury plays an important role in mortality. However, treatment-dictating injuries are often missed on the chest X-ray. In contrast, clavicle fractures should be relatively easy to diagnose on a chest X-ray. We previously showed that clavicle fractures occur in approximately 10 % of all polytrauma patients in our population. The aim was to compare polytrauma patients, with and without a clavicle fracture, to investigate if a clavicle fracture is associated with concomitant thoracic injury. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of polytrauma patients (ISS ≥ 16) from 2007 until 2011. Thoracic injuries were defined as: ribfracture, pneumothorax, lung contusion, sternum fracture, hemothorax, myocardial contusion, thoracic aorta injury and thoracic spine injury. RESULTS: Of 1461 polytrauma patients in 160 patients a clavicle fracture was diagnosed, and 95 % was diagnosed on chest X-ray. Patients with a clavicle fracture had a higher mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) (29.2 ± 10.1 vs. 24.9 ± 9.1; P < 0.001). Additional thoracic injuries were more prevalent in patients with a clavicle fracture (76 vs. 47 %; OR 3.6; 95 % CI 2.45-5.24) and they had a higher rate of thoracic injury with an AIS ≥ 3 (66 vs. 41 %; OR 2.8; 95 % CI 1.97-3.93). CONCLUSIONS: The clavicle can be seen as the gatekeeper of the thorax. In polytrauma patients, a clavicle fracture is easily diagnosed during primary survey and may indicate underlying thoracic injury, as the rate and extent of concomitant thoracic injury are high.

Isolated hip fracture care in an inclusive trauma system: A trauma system wide evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients with a hip fracture represent a large proportion of the trauma population; however, little is known about outcome differences between different levels of trauma care for these patients. The aim of this study is to analyse the outcome of trauma care in patients with a hip fracture within our inclusive trauma system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from the electronic patient documentation of patients, with an isolated hip fracture (aged ≥ 60), admitted to a level I or level II trauma centre between January 2008 and December 2012. Main outcomes were time to operative treatment, complications, mortality, and secondary surgical intervention rate. RESULTS: A total of 204 (level I) and 1425 (level II) patients were admitted. Significantly more ASA4 patients, by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, were treated at the level I trauma centre. At the level II trauma centre, median time to surgical treatment was shorter (0 days; IQR 0-1 vs 1 day; IQR 1-2; P < 0.001), which was mainly influenced by postponement due to lack of operation room availability (14%, n = 28) and co-morbidities (13%, n = 26) present at the level I trauma centre. At the level II trauma centre, hospital stay was shorter (9 vs 11 days; P < 0.001) and the complication rate was lower (41%; n = 590 vs 53%; n = 108; P = 0.002), as was mortality (4%; n = 54 vs 7%; n = 15; P = 0.018). Secondary surgical intervention was performed less often at the level II trauma centre (6%; n = 91 vs 12%; n = 24; P = 0.005). However, no differences in secondary surgical procedures due to inadequate postoperative outcome or implant failure were observed. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The clinical pathway and the large volume of patients at the level II centre resulted in earlier surgical intervention, lower overall complication and mortality rate, and a shorter length of stay. Therefore, the elderly patient with a hip fracture should ideally be treated in the large-volume level II hospital with a pre-established clinical pathway. However, complex patients requiring specific care that can only be provided at the level I trauma centre may be treated there with similar operative results.

Accuracy of the field triage protocol in selecting severely injured patients after high energy trauma.

BACKGROUND: For optimal treatment of trauma patients it is of great importance to identify patients who are at risk for severe injuries. The Dutch field triage protocol for trauma patients, the LPA (National Protocol of Ambulance Services), is designed to get the right patient, in the right time, to the right hospital. Purpose of this study was to determine diagnostic accuracy and compliance of this triage protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Triage criteria were categorised into physiological condition (P), mechanism of trauma (M) and injury type (I). A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all high-energy trauma patients from 2008 to 2011 in the region Central Netherlands is performed. Diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value) of the field triage protocol for selecting severely injured patients were calculated including rates of under- and overtriage. Undertriage was defined as the proportion of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS)≥16) who were transported to a level two or three trauma care centre. Overtriage was defined as the proportion of non-severely injured patients (ISS<16) who were transported to a level one trauma care centre. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity and specificity of the field triage protocol was 89.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.4-92.6) and 60.5% (95% CI 57.9-63.1), respectively. The overall rate of undertriage was 10.9% (95%CI 7.4-15.7) and the overall rate of overtriage was 39.5% (95%CI 36.9-42.1). These rates were 16.5% and 37.7%, respectively for patients with M+I-P-. Compliance to the triage protocol for patients with M+I-P- was 78.7%. Furthermore, compliance in patients with either a positive I+ or positive P+ was 91.2%. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of undertriage (10.8%) was mainly influenced by a high rate of undertriage in the group of patients with only a positive mechanism criterion, therefore showing low diagnostic accuracy in selecting severely injured patients. As a consequence these patients with severe injury are undetected using the current triage protocol. As it has been shown that severely injured patients have better outcome in level one trauma care centres further optimisation of this protocol aiming at lowering undertriage is therefore essential, preferably without incrementing overtriage too much.