An AAST-MITC analysis of pancreatic trauma: Staple or sew? Resect or drain?

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic trauma results in high morbidity and mortality, in part caused by the delay in diagnosis and subsequent organ dysfunction. Optimal operative management strategies remain unclear. We therefore sought to determine CT accuracy in diagnosing pancreatic injury and the morbidity and mortality associated with varying operative strategies. METHODS: We created a multicenter, pancreatic trauma registry from 18 Level 1 and 2 trauma centers. Adult, blunt or penetrating injured patients from 2005 to 2012 were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity of CT scan identification of main pancreatic duct injury was calculated against operative findings. Independent predictors for mortality, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and pancreatic fistula and/or pseudocyst were identified through multivariate regression analysis. The association between outcomes and operative management was measured. RESULTS: We identified 704 pancreatic injury patients of whom 584 (83%) underwent a pancreas-related procedure. CT grade modestly correlated with OR grade (r 0.39) missing 10 ductal injuries (9 grade III, 1 grade IV) providing 78.7% sensitivity and 61.6% specificity. Independent predictors of mortality were age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), lactate, and number of packed red blood cells transfused. Independent predictors of ARDS were ISS, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and pancreatic fistula (OR 5.2, 2.6-10.1). Among grade III injuries (n = 158, 22.4%), the risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst was reduced when the end of the pancreas was stapled (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.9) compared with sewn and was not affected by duct stitch placement. Drainage alone in grades IV (n = 25) and V (n = 24) injuries carried increased risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst (OR 8.3, 95% CI 2.2-32.9). CONCLUSION: CT is insufficiently sensitive to reliably identify pancreatic duct injury. Patients with grade III injuries should have their resection site stapled instead of sewn and a duct stitch is unnecessary. Further study is needed to determine if drainage alone should be employed in grades IV and V injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/Diagnostic study, level III.

Current management of hemorrhage from severe pelvic fractures: Results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus as to the optimal treatment paradigm for patients presenting with hemorrhage from severe pelvic fracture. This study was established to determine the methods of hemorrhage control currently being used in clinical practice. METHODS: This prospective, observational multi-center study enrolled patients with pelvic fracture from blunt trauma. Demographic data, admission vital signs, presence of shock on admission (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or heart rate > 120 beats per minute or base deficit < -5), method of hemorrhage control, transfusion requirements, and outcome were collected. RESULTS: A total of 1,339 patients with pelvic fracture were enrolled from 11 Level I trauma centers. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were male, with a mean ± SD age of 47.1 ± 21.6 years, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 19.2 ± 12.7. In-hospital mortality was 9.0 %. Angioembolization and external fixator placement were the most common method of hemorrhage control used. A total of 128 patients (9.6%) underwent diagnostic angiography with contrast extravasation noted in 63 patients. Therapeutic angioembolization was performed on 79 patients (5.9%). There were 178 patients (13.3%) with pelvic fracture admitted in shock with a mean ± SD ISS of 28.2 ± 14.1. In the shock group, 44 patients (24.7%) underwent angiography to diagnose a pelvic source of bleeding with contrast extravasation found in 27 patients. Thirty patients (16.9%) were treated with therapeutic angioembolization. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was performed on five patients in shock and used by only one of the participating centers. Mortality was 32.0% for patients with pelvic fracture admitted in shock. CONCLUSION: Patients with pelvic fracture admitted in shock have high mortality. Several methods were used for hemorrhage control with significant variation across institutions. The use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta may prove to be an important adjunct in the treatment of patients with severe pelvic fracture in shock; however, it is in the early stages of evaluation and not currently used widely across trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II; therapeutic study, level III.