Multimodal analgesia reduces opioid requirements in trauma patients with rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are common in trauma patients and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Adequate analgesia is essential to avoid the complications associated with rib fractures. Opioids are frequently used for analgesia in these patients. This study compared the effect of a multimodal pain regimen (MMPR) on inpatient opioid use and outpatient opioid prescribing practices in adult trauma patients with rib fractures. STUDY DESIGN: A pre-post cohort study of adult trauma patients with rib fractures was conducted at a Level I trauma center before (PRE) and after (POST) implementation of an MMPR. Patients on long-acting opioids before admission and those on continuous opioid infusions were excluded. Primary outcomes were oral opioid administration during the first 5 days of hospitalization and opioids prescribed at discharge. Opioid data were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-three patients met inclusion criteria (323 PRE, 330 POST). There was a significant reduction in the daily MME during the second through fifth days of hospitalization; and the average inpatient MME over the first five inpatient days (23 MME PRE vs. 17 MME POST, p = 0.0087). There was a significant reduction in the total outpatient MME prescribed upon discharge (322 MME PRE vs. 225 MME POST, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The implementation of an MMPR in patients with rib fractures resulted in significant reduction in inpatient opioid consumption and was associated with a reduction in the quantity of opiates prescribed at discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; level IV.

Attention to detail: A dedicated rib fracture consultation service leads to earlier operation and improved clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has been correlated with improved outcomes, including decreased length of stay (LOS). We hypothesized that an SSRF consultation service would increase the frequency of SSRF and improve outcomes. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed to compare outcomes before and after implementing an SSRF service. Primary outcome was time from admission to surgery; secondary outcomes included LOS, mortality and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed at discharge. RESULTS: 1865 patients met consultation criteria and 128 patients underwent SSRF. Mortality decreased (6.3% vs. 3%) and patients were prescribed fewer MME at discharge (328 MME vs. 124 MME) following implementation. For the operative cohort, time from admission to surgery decreased by 1.72 days and ICU LOS decreased by 2.6 days. CONCLUSION: Establishment of an SSRF service provides a mechanism to maximize capture and evaluation of operative candidates, provide earlier intervention, and improve patient outcomes. Additional study to determine which elements and techniques are most beneficial is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Maximizing the Calm before the Storm: Tiered Surgical Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was first diagnosed in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and has now spread throughout the world, being verified by the World Health Organization as a pandemic on March 11. This had led to the calling of a national emergency on March 13 in the US. Many hospitals, healthcare networks, and specifically, departments of surgery, are asking the same questions about how to cope and plan for surge capacity, personnel attrition, novel infrastructure utilization, and resource exhaustion. Herein, we present a tiered plan for surgical department planning based on incident command levels. This includes acute care surgeon deployment (given their critical care training and vertically integrated position in the hospital), recommended infrastructure and transfer utilization, triage principles, and faculty, resident, and advanced care practitioner deployment.

Stapled versus hand-sewn anastomoses in emergency general surgery: a retrospective review of outcomes in a unique patient population.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified unique clinical and physiologic characteristics of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients and called for outcomes data in this population. There are no data in the US literature analyzing the impact of technique on anastomotic failure rates in EGS patients. The purpose of the current study was to compare outcomes of hand-sewn (HS) versus stapled (ST) bowel anastomoses in EGS patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients admitted by our EGS service undergoing bowel resection for emergent indications from January 2007 to July 2011 was performed. Time from surgery to diagnosis of anastomotic failure was recorded as were the diagnostic modality and treatment of each anastomotic failure. Specific data on damage-control techniques, if used, were also collected. RESULTS: There were 100 HS (43%), and 133 ST (57%) anastomoses in 231 patients. Operative times were shorter in ST anastomosis technique (205 minutes for HS vs. 193 minutes for ST, p = 0.02). Anastomotic failures were identified in 26 patients (11%) and were significantly higher in the ST group than the HS group (15.0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003). A multivariate logistic regression analysis, controlling for age and preoperative nutritional status, revealed ST technique to be an independent risk factor for anastomotic failure (odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.50; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Anastomotic failures are more than twice as likely with ST than HS anastomoses in the EGS population. This is true even when controlling for markers of preoperative nutrition and demographics. These data suggest that the HS anastomosis should be the preferred method of reconstruction after bowel resection in EGS patients.