Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Management of Traumatic Penetrating Internal Jugular Vein Injury

Abstract

Small case series have suggested that selective nonoperative management (NOM) of penetrating internal jugular vein (IJV) injuries is safe and feasible in select patients lacking "hard signs" mandating exploration. Therefore, we sought to compare NOM to operative management (OM) of penetrating IJV injury, hypothesizing that both strategies have similar patient outcomes and mortality when patients are appropriately selected. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2013-2016) was queried for patients with penetrating IJV injury with an abbreviated injury scale score of the neck ≥3. Demographics and patient outcomes were compared between patients undergoing NOM and patients undergoing OM, followed by a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze the risk of mortality. A penetrating IJV injury was identified in 188 (0.01%) patients meeting inclusion criteria, and OM was performed in 124 (66.0%) patients, whereas 64 (34.0%) patients underwent NOM. Although the OM group had a higher rate of pneumothorax (8.9% vs. 0.0%, P=0.01), there was no difference in any other concomitant injuries or demographic data (all P>0.05). The OM group had a higher rate of ventilator days (3 vs. 2days, P=0.01) but no other significant differences in morbidity or mortality (P>0.05). After controlling for covariates, OM was associated with similar risk of mortality compared with NOM of patients with penetrating IJV injury (odds ratio 1.05, confidence interval 0.23-4.83, P=0.95). The NOM of penetrating IJV injuries is associated with similar risk of morbidity and mortality compared with OM, suggesting that NOM may be used in appropriately selected patients. Future research is needed to determine the ideal patients suited for NOM and to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with failure of NOM.