Abstract
BackgroundNonoperative management (NOM) of most liver injury (LI) compromises teaching of technical skills required for intraoperative LI hemostasis. This study assesses this void. MethodsThe records of patients (pts) admitted for LI during two years (1/1/16–12/31/17) were compared to pts treated during two-year intervals for the last six decades. Treatment included NOM, operation only (OR/only), suture (Sut), tractotomy (Tra), dearterialization (HAL), and resection (Res). ResultsDuring 2016/2017, 41 pts had penetrating (23) or blunt (18) LI. Treatment for penetrating LI was NOM (4), OR/only (12), and hemostasis (7) with Sut (3), HAL (1), Tra (1), and Res (2). Treatment for blunt LI was NOM (16) and OR/only (2). 14 residents performed an average of 0.5 procedures. During six decades, LI requiring hemostasis was 121, 114, 30, 48, 17, and 7 per decade. Concomitantly, the percent having NOM or OR/only was 46%, 47%, 62%, 59%, 72%, and 83%. ConclusionNOM precludes adequate training for hemostasis of LI. Technical proficiency for LI hemostasis requires training in Advanced Trauma Operative Management (ATOM), Advanced Surgical Skills for Exposure in Trauma (ASSET), and rotation through a liver transplant or hepatobiliary service.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.