In-Hospital Risk Factors for Reintervention and Amputation in Brachial Arterial Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Brachial artery trauma is a rare but potentially devastating injury. There is little data regarding risk factors for reintervention and amputation prevention in this population, as well as anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) regimens and outcomes after discharge in trauma patients with vascular injuries requiring repair. This study aims to identify in-hospital risk factors for reintervention and amputation and stratify outcomes of follow-up by discharge AC or AP regimen. METHODS: The AAST Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Trial database was queried for all patients who underwent traumatic brachial arterial repair from 2013 to 2022. Patients were evaluated by need for reintervention, amputation, and outcomes at follow-up by AC or AP regimen. RESULTS: Three hundred and eleven patients required brachial repair, 28 (9%) required reoperation, and 8 (2.6%) required amputation. High injury severity score and an increased number of packed red blood cells and platelets showed a significant increase for reoperation and amputation. Damage control and shunt use were significant for the need to reoperate. Seventy-four percent (221/298) of patients were discharged with postoperative AC or AP regimens. There was no significant difference of short-term follow-up by type of AC or AP regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Damage control and temporary shunt may lead to additional operations but not an increase in amputations. However, anticoagulation intraoperatively and postoperatively does not appear to play a significant role in reducing reintervention. It also suggests that there is no increase in short-term follow-up complications with or without AC or AP therapy.

Defining Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: From Research Definition to Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 75% of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) qualify as mild. However, there exists no universally agreed upon definition for mild TBI (mTBI). Consequently, treatment guidelines for this group are lacking. The Center for Disease Control (CDC), American College of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM), Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (VA/DoD), Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST), and the University of Arizona's Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) have each published differing definitions for mTBI. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of these definitions to correctly classify mTBI patients in the acute care setting. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study comparing the performance of the varying definitions of mTBI was performed at a Level I trauma center from August 2015 to December 2018. Definitions were compared by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, as well as overtriage and undertriage rates. Finally, a cost-savings analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 596 patients suffering blunt TBI with Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15. The CDC/ACRM definitions demonstrated 100% sensitivity but 0% specificity along with the highest rate of undertriage and TBI-related mortality. BIG 1 included nearly twice as many patients than EAST and VA/DoD while achieving a superior positive predictive value and undertriage rate. CONCLUSIONS: The BIG definition identified a larger number of patients compared to the VA/DoD and EAST definitions while having an acceptable and more accurate overtriage and undertriage rate compared to the CDC and ACRM. By eliminating undertriage and minimizing overtriage rates, the BIG maintains patient safety while enhancing the efficiency of healthcare systems. Using the BIG definition, a cost savings of $395,288.95-$401,263.95 per year could be obtained at our level 1 trauma facility without additional mortality.

Creation of an Application to Increase Surgical Resident Operative Case Coverage.

PURPOSE: Studies have shown that the confidence of surgical residents to perform procedures after completing residency can be affected by their volume of operative experiences. Many surgical residencies span multiple hospitals with a multitude of attendings providing additional educational opportunities available via cross-coverage. This study aims to evaluate the use of a mobile application (app) for operative cross-coverage to improve surgical opportunities in a large surgical residency program and decrease the number of uncovered cases. METHODS: An app allowing for uncovered cases to be sent to all surgical residents was used starting March 2022. A survey was completed by residents pre- and postapp implementation. A retrospective chart review was conducted of all general surgery procedures at the 2 major hospital systems 4 months before and after implementation to evaluate resident case coverage. RESULTS: In the preapp survey, 71% (27/38) of residents noted cross-covering 1 or more cases a month with 90% (34/38) reporting, they were unaware of all cases available. In the postapp survey, 100% of residents reported better awareness of available cases, 97% (35/36) reported uncovered cases were more easily accessible, 100% felt the app simplified finding coverage, and 100% wanted to continue the app long-term. On retrospective review, 7210 cases were identified in the preapp and postapp period with an increased volume of cases in the postapp period. After implementation of the case coverage app, there was a significant increase in total case coverage (p = <0.001) as well as a significant increase in coverage of endoscopic (p = 0.007), laparoscopic (p = 0.025), open (p = 0.015) and robotic cases (p = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the impact that technological innovation can play in the education and operative experiences of surgical residents. This can be used to improve operative experiences of residents in various surgical fields in any training program throughout the country.