Use Of Damage Control Laparotomy Research Articles

A decade long overview of damage control laparotomy for abdominal gunshot wounds.

Over the last three decades, damage control laparotomy (DCL) has become important in the management of abdominal gunshot wounds (GSW). This paper reviews the experience of a single institution over a decade with the use of DCL for GSW of the abdomen. Longitudinal data (2013-2022) was collected from the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry database to identify all patients with an abdominal GSW over the study period. The data was stratified based on patients who underwent DCL and those who did not. Descriptive analysis was completed to summarise the raw data. Univariate and multivariate analysis was completed to identify variables associated with undergoing DCL. There were 135 patients (32%) who underwent DCL and 290 patients (68%) who did not. Colonic, small bowel, mesenteric, hepatic, pancreatic and intra-abdominal vessel injuries were associated with the need for DCL (P<0.05). In total, 85 of the 135 (63%) patients who underwent DCL required more than one damage control technique. There were 45 (33%) mortalities in the DCL group compared to 16 mortalities (6%) in the non-DCL group (P<0.001). One third of patients who underwent a laparotomy following a gunshot wound to the abdomen had a DCL. The indications for DCL include both physiological criteria and injury patterns. DCL is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Efforts need to be directed towards refining the indications for DCL in this group of patients to prevent inappropriate application of this potentially lifesaving technique.

The variable role of damage control laparotomy over 19 years of trauma care in Pennsylvania

BackgroundDamage control laparotomy emphasizes physiologic stabilization of critically injured patients and allows staged surgical management. However, there is little consensus on the optimal criteria for damage control laparotomy. We examined variability between centers and over time in Pennsylvania. MethodsWe analyzed the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data between 2000 and 2018, excluding centers performing <10 laparotomies/year. Laparotomy was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, and damage control laparotomy was defined by a code for “reopening of recent laparotomy” or a return to the operating room >4 hours from index laparotomy that was not unplanned. We examined trends over time and by center. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to predict both damage control laparotomy and mortality, generate observed:expected ratios, and identify outliers for each. We compared risk-adjusted mortality rates to center-level damage control laparotomy rates. ResultsIn total, 18,896 laparotomies from 22 centers were analyzed; 3,549 damage control laparotomies were performed (18.8% of all laparotomies). The use of damage control laparotomy in Pennsylvania varied from 13.9% to 22.8% over time. There was wide variation in center-level use of damage control laparotomy, from 11.1% to 29.4%, despite adjustment. Factors associated with damage control laparotomy included injury severity and admission vital signs. Center identity improved the model as demonstrated by likelihood ratio test (P < .001), suggesting differences in center-level practices. There was minimal correlation between center-level damage control laparotomy use and mortality. ConclusionThere is wide center-level variation in the use of damage control laparotomy among centers, despite adjustment for patient factors. Damage control laparotomy is both resource intensive and highly morbid; regional resources should be allocated to address this substantial practice variation to optimize damage control laparotomy use.

Variation in use of damage control laparotomy for trauma by trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia

BackgroundIt is unknown how frequently damage control (DC) laparotomy is used across trauma centers in different countries. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to study variations in use of the procedure and predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy.MethodsA self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia was conducted. The survey collected information about trauma center and program characteristics. It also asked how often the trauma program director estimated DC laparotomy was performed on injured patients at that center on average over the last year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of a higher reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy.ResultsOf the 366 potentially eligible trauma centers sent the survey, 199 (51.8%) trauma program directors or leaders responded [United States = 156 (78.4%), Canada = 26 (13.1%), and Australasia = 17 (8.5%)]. The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. DC laparotomy was used more frequently in level-1 than level-2 or -3 trauma centers. Further, high-volume level-1 centers used DC laparotomy significantly more often than lower volume level-1 centers (p = 0.02). Nearly half (48.4%) of high-volume volume level-1 trauma centers reported using the procedure at least once weekly. Significant adjusted predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy included country of origin [odds ratio (OR) for the United States vs. Canada = 7.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–40.27], level-1 verification status (OR = 6.02; 95% CI 2.01–18.06), and the assessment of a higher number of severely injured (Injury Severity Scale score > 15) patients (OR per-100 patients = 1.62; 95% CI 1.20–2.18) and patients with penetrating injuries (OR per-5% increase = 1.27; 95% CI 1.01–1.58) in the last year.ConclusionsThe reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. Those centers that most need to evaluate the benefit-to-risk ratio of using DC laparotomy in different scenarios may include high-volume, level-1 trauma centers, particularly those that often manage penetrating injuries.

They only come out at night: Impact of time of day on outcomes after penetrating abdominal trauma

BackgroundPatients who present at night following penetrating abdominal trauma are thought to have more severe injuries and increased risk for morbidity and mortality. The current literature is at odds regarding this belief. The purpose of this study was to evaluate time of day on outcomes following laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma. MethodsPatients undergoing laparotomy following penetrating abdominal trauma over a 12-month period at a level I trauma center were stratified by age, sex, severity of shock, injury, operative complexity, and time of day (DAY = 0700–1900, NIGHT = 1901–0659). Outcomes of damage control laparotomy, ventilator days, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality were compared between DAY and NIGHT. ResultsA total of 210 patients were identified: 145 (69%) comprised NIGHT, and 65 (31%) comprised DAY. Overall mortality was 2.9%. Both injury severity and intraoperative transfusions were increased with NIGHT with no difference in morbidity (37% vs 40%, P = 0.63) or mortality (2.1% vs 4.6%, P = 0.31). Adjusting for sex, time of day, injury severity, and operative complexity, only abdominal abbreviated injury severity (odds ratio 1.46; 95% confidence interval 1.07–1.99, P = .019) and operative transfusions (odds ratio 1.18; 95% confidence interval 1.09–1.28, P < .0001) were identified as independent predictors of damage control laparotomy using multivariable logistic regression (area under the curve 0.96). ConclusionThe majority of operative penetrating abdominal trauma occurs at night with increased injury burden, more operative transfusions, and increased use of damage control laparotomy with no difference in morbidity and mortality. Outcomes at a fully staffed and operational trauma center should not be impacted by time of day.

Accuracy of Published Indications for Predicting Use of Damage Control During Laparotomy for Trauma

BackgroundAlthough studies have identified published indications that experts and practicing surgeons agree indicate use of damage control (DC) laparotomy, it is unknown whether these indications predict use of the procedure in practice. Materials and methodsWe conducted a diagnostic performance study of the accuracy of a set of published appropriateness indications for predicting use of DC laparotomy. We included consecutive adults that underwent emergent laparotomy for trauma (2011-2016) at Memorial Hermann Hospital. ResultsWe included 1141 injured adults. Two published preoperative appropriateness indications [a systolic blood pressure (BP) persistently <90 mmHg or core body temperature <34°C] produced moderate shifts in the pretest probability of conducting DC instead of definitive laparotomy. Five published intraoperative appropriateness indications produced large and often conclusive changes in the pretest probability of conducting DC during emergent laparotomy. These included the finding of a devascularized or completely disrupted pancreas, duodenum, or pancreaticoduodenal complex; an estimated intraoperative blood loss >4 L; administration of >10 U of packed red blood cells (PRBCs); and a systolic BP persistently <90 mmHg or arterial pH persistently <7.2 during operation. Most indications that produced large changes in the pretest probability of conducting DC laparotomy had an incidence of 2% or less. ConclusionsThis study suggests that published appropriateness indications accurately predict use of DC laparotomy in practice. Intraoperative variables exert greater influence on the decision to conduct DC laparotomy than preoperative variables, and those indications that produce large shifts in the pretest probability of conducting DC laparotomy are uncommonly encountered.

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project

Rates of damage control laparotomy (DCL) vary widely and consensus on appropriate indications does not exist. The purposes of this multicenter quality improvement (QI) project were to decrease the use of DCL and to identify indications where consensus exists. In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, QI project utilizing a single QI tool: audit and feedback. Each emergent trauma laparotomy was prospectively reviewed. Damage control laparotomy cases were adjudicated based on the majority vote of faculty members as being appropriate or potentially, in retrospect, safe for definitive laparotomy. The rate of DCL for 2 years prior (2014 and 2015) was retrospectively collected and used as a control. To account for secular trends of DCL, interrupted time series was used to effectiveness of the QI interventions. Eight hundred seventy-two emergent laparotomies were performed: 73% definitive laparotomies, 24% DCLs, and 3% intraoperative deaths. Of the 209 DCLs, 162 (78%) were voted appropriate, and 47 (22%) were voted to have been potentially safe for definitive laparotomy. Rates of DCL ranged from 16% to 34%. Common indications for DCL for which consensus existed were packing (103/115 [90%] appropriate) and hemodynamic instability (33/40 [83%] appropriate). The only common indication for which primary closure at the initial laparotomy could have been safely performed was avoiding a planned second look (16/32 [50%] appropriate). A single faceted QI intervention failed to decrease the rate of DCL at six US Level I trauma centers. However, opportunities for improvement in safely decreasing the rate of DCL were present. Second look laparotomy appears to lack consensus as an indication for DCL and may represent a target to decrease the rate of DCL after injury. Epidemiological study with one negative criterion, level III.

Effect of damage control laparotomy on major abdominal complications and lengths of stay: A propensity score matching and Bayesian analysis.

In patients for whom surgical equipoise exists for damage control laparotomy (DCL) and definitive laparotomy (DEF), the effect of DCL and its associated resource utilization are unknown. We hypothesized that DEF would be associated with fewer abdominal complications and less resource utilization. In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, prospective, quality improvement project with the primary aim to safely decrease the use of DCL. From this cohort of patients undergoing emergent trauma laparotomy, those who underwent DCL but were judged by majority faculty vote at each center to have been candidates for potential DEF (pDEF) were prospectively identified. These pDEF patients were matched 1:1 using propensity scoring to the DEF patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of major abdominal complications (MAC). Deaths within 5 days were excluded. Outcomes were assessed using both Bayesian generalized linear modeling and negative binomial regression. Eight hundred seventy-two total patients were enrolled, 639 (73%) DEF and 209 (24%) DCL. Of the 209 DCLs, 44 survived 5 days and were judged to be patients who could have safely been closed at the primary laparotomy. Thirty-nine pDEF patients were matched to 39 DEF patients. There were no differences in demographics, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, prehospital/emergency department/operating room vital signs, laboratory values, resuscitation, or procedures performed during laparotomy. There was no difference in MAC between the two groups (31% DEF vs. 21% pDEF, relative risk 0.99, 95% credible interval 0.60-1.54, posterior probability 56%). Definitive laparotomy was associated with a 72%, 77%, and 72% posterior probability of more hospital-free, intensive care unit-free, and ventilator-free days, respectively. In patients for whom surgeons have equipoise for DCL versus definitive surgery, definitive abdominal closure was associated with a similar probability of MAC, but a high probability of fewer hospital-free, intensive care unit-free, and ventilator-free days. Therapeutic/care management, level III.

Using Machine Learning to Identify Change in Surgical Decision Making in Current Use of Damage Control Laparotomy

In an earlier study, we reported the successful reduction in the use of damage control laparotomy (DCL); however, no change in the relative frequencies of specific indications was observed. In this study, we aimed to use machine learning to help identify the changes in surgical decision making that occurred. Adult patients undergoing emergent trauma laparotomy were included: pre-quality improvement (QI): January 1, 2011 to October 31, 2013 and post-QI: November 1, 2013 to June 30, 2016. Using 72 variables before or during emergent laparotomy, random forest algorithms predicting DCL before and after a QI intervention were created. The main end point of the algorithms was the strength of individual factor significance in predicting the use of DCL, calculated by determining the mean decrease in accuracy (MDA) in the model if that variable was removed. In the pre-QI group, 24 of 72 factors significantly predicted DCL, the strongest being bowel resection (mean MDA 16) and operating room RBC transfusions (mean MDA 15). The remaining variables were spread along the continuum of care from injury to emergent laparotomy end. In the post-QI group, 12 of 72 factors significantly predicted DCL, the strongest being last operating room lactate (mean MDA 12) and operating room RBC transfusions (mean MDA 14). In addition to having 12 fewer significant factors predictive of DCL, the predictive factors in the post-QI group were mainly intraoperative factors. A machine learning analysis provided novel insights into the changes in decision making achieved by a successful QI intervention and should be considered an adjunct to understanding successful pre- and post-intervention QI studies. The analysis suggested a shift toward using mostly intraoperative factors to determine the use of DCL.

General surgeon management of complex hepatopancreatobiliary trauma at a level I trauma center

BackgroundThe impact of general surgeons (GS) taking trauma call on patient outcomes has been debated. Complex hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) injuries present a particular challenge and often require specialized care. We predicted no difference in the initial management or outcomes of complex HPB trauma between GS and trauma/critical care (TCC) specialists. Materials and methodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent operative intervention for complex HPB trauma from 2008 to 2015 at an ACS-verified level I trauma center was performed. Chart review was used to obtain variables pertaining to demographics, clinical presentation, operative management, and outcomes. Patients were grouped according to whether their index operation was performed by a GS or TCC provider and compared. Results180 patients met inclusion criteria. The GS (n = 43) and TCC (n = 137) cohorts had comparable patient demographics and clinical presentations. Most injuries were hepatic (73.3% GS versus 72.6% TCC) and TCC treated more pancreas injuries (15.3% versus GS 13.3%; P = 0.914). No significant differences were found in HPB-directed interventions at the initial operation (41.9% GS versus 56.2% TCC; P = 0.100), damage control laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure (69.8% versus 69.3%; P = 0.861), LOS, septic complications or 30-day mortality (13.9% versus 10.2%; P = 0.497). TCC were more likely to place an intraabdominal drain than GS (52.6% versus 34.9%; P = 0.043). ConclusionsWe found no significant differences between GS and TCC specialists in initial operative management or clinical outcomes of complex HPB trauma. The frequent and proper use of damage control laparotomy likely contribute to these findings.

History of the Innovation of Damage Control for Management of Trauma Patients: 1902-2016.

To review the history of the innovation of damage control (DC) for management of trauma patients. DC is an important development in trauma care that provides a valuable case study in surgical innovation. We searched bibliographic databases (1950-2015), conference abstracts (2009-2013), Web sites, textbooks, and bibliographies for articles relating to trauma DC. The innovation of DC was then classified according to the Innovation, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study model of surgical innovation. The "innovation" of DC originated from the use of therapeutic liver packing, a practice that had previously been abandoned after World War II because of adverse events. It then "developed" into abbreviated laparotomy using "rapid conservative operative techniques." Subsequent "exploration" resulted in the application of DC to increasingly complex abdominal injuries and thoracic, peripheral vascular, and orthopedic injuries. Increasing use of DC laparotomy was followed by growing reports of postinjury abdominal compartment syndrome and prophylactic use of the open abdomen to prevent intra-abdominal hypertension after DC laparotomy. By the year 2000, DC surgery had been widely adopted and was recommended for use in surgical journals, textbooks, and teaching courses ("assessment" stage of innovation). "Long-term study" of DC is raising questions about whether the procedure should be used more selectively in the context of improving resuscitation practices. The history of the innovation of DC illustrates how a previously abandoned surgical technique was adapted and readopted in response to an increased understanding of trauma patient physiology and changing injury patterns and trauma resuscitation practices.

Caring for critically injured children: An analysis of 56 pediatric damage control laparotomies.

Injury is the leading cause of death in children under 18 years. Damage control principles have been extensively studied in adults but remain relatively unstudied in children. Our primary study objective was to evaluate the use of damage control laparotomy (DCL) in critically injured children. An American College of Surgeons-verified Level 1 trauma center review (1996-2013) of pediatric trauma laparotomies was undertaken. Exclusion criteria included: age older than 18 years, laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome or delayed longer than 2 hours after admission. Demographics, mechanism, resuscitation variables, injuries, need for DCL, and outcomes were evaluated. Independent t test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and single-factor analysis of variance assessed statistical significance. Study endpoints were hospital survival and DCL complications. Of 371 children who underwent trauma laparotomy, the median age (IQR; LQ-UQ) age was 16 (5; 11-17) years. Most (73%) were male injured by blunt mechanism (65%). Fifty-six (15%) children (Injury Severity Score [ISS], 33 (25; 17-42), pediatric trauma score 5 (6; 2-8), penetrating abdominal trauma index score [PATI] 29 (32; 12-44)) underwent DCL after major solid organ (63%), vascular (36%), thoracic (38%) and pelvic (36%) injury. DCL patients were older (16.5 (4; 14-18) vs. 16 (7; 10-17)) and were more severely injured (ISS, 33 [25; 17-42] vs. 16 [16; 9-25]), requiring greater intraoperative packed red blood cell transfusion (8 [13; 3.5-16.5] vs. 1 (0; [0-1] units) than definitive laparotomy counterparts. Nonsurvivors arrived in severe physiologic compromise (base deficit, 17 [17; 8-25] vs. 7 [4; 4-8]), requiring more frequent preoperative blood product transfusion (67% vs. 10%) after comparable injury (ISS survivors, 36 [23; 18-41] vs. nonsurvivors 26 (7; 25-32), p = 0.8880). Fifty-five percent of DCL patients survived (length of stay, 26 [21; 18-39] days) requiring 3 (2; 2-4) laparotomies during 4 (6; 2-8) days until closure (fascial, 90%; vicryl/split thickness skin grafting, 10%). DCL complications (surgical site infection, 18%; dehiscence, 2%; enterocutaneous fistula, 2%) were analyzed. When stratified by age (<15 years vs. 15-18 years) and period (1996-2006 vs. 2007-2013), no differences were found in injury severity or DCL outcomes (p > 0.05). After controlling for DCL, age, and gender, multivariate analysis indicated only ISS (odds ratio, 1.10 [95% confidence interval, 1.01 - 1.19], p = 0.0218) and arrival systolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.99], p = 0.0254) predicted mortality after severe injury. DCL is a proven, lifesaving surgical technique in adults. This report is the first to analyze the use of DCL in children with critical abdominal injuries. With similar survival and morbidity rates as critically injured adults, DCL merits careful consideration in children with critical abdominal injuries. Therapeutic study, level IV.

Decreasing the Use of Damage Control Laparotomy in Trauma: A Quality Improvement Project

Our institution has published damage control laparotomy (DCL) rates of 30% and documented the substantial morbidity associated with the open abdomen. The purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to decrease the rate of DCL at a busy, Level I trauma center in the US. A prospective cohort of all emergent trauma laparotomies from November 2013 to October 2015 (QI group) was followed. The QI intervention was multifaceted and included audit and feedback for every DCL case. Morbidity and mortality of the QI patients were compared with those from a published control (control group: emergent laparotomy from January 2011 to October 2013). A significant decrease was observed immediately on beginning the QI project, from a 39% DCL rate in the control period to 23% in the QI group (p < 0.001). This decrease was sustained over the 2-year study period. There were no differences in demographics, Injury Severity Score, or transfusions between the groups. No differences organ/space infection (control 16% vs QI 12%; p= 0.15), fascial dehiscence (6% vs 8%; p= 0.20), unplanned relaparotomy (11% vs 10%; p= 0.58), or mortality (9% vs 10%; p= 0.69) were observed. The reduction in use resulted in a decrease of 68 DCLs over the 2-year period. There was a further reduction in the rate of DCL to 17% after completion of the QI project. A QI initiative rapidly changed the use of DCL and improved quality of care by decreasing resource use without an increase morbidity or mortality. This decrease was sustained during the QI period and further improved upon after its completion.

Improving mortality in trauma laparotomy through the evolution of damage control resuscitation: Analysis of 1,030 consecutive trauma laparotomies.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the related change in outcomes (mortality, complications) in patients undergoing trauma laparotomy (TL) with the implementation of damage control resuscitation (DCR). We hypothesized that the implementation of DCR in patients undergoing TL is associated with better outcomes. We analyzed 1,030 consecutive patients with TL. Patients were stratified into three phases: pre-DCR (2006-2007), transient (2008-2009), and post-DCR (2010-2013). Resuscitation fluids (crystalloids and blood products), injury severity score (ISS), vital signs, and laboratory (hemoglobin, international normalized ratio, lactate) parameters were recorded. Regression analysis was performed after adjusting for age, ISS, laboratory and vital parameters, comorbidities, and resuscitation fluids to identify independent predictors for outcomes in each phase. Patient demographics and ISS remained the same throughout the three phases. There was a significant reduction in the volume of crystalloid (p = 0.001) and a concomitant increase in the blood product resuscitation (p = 0.04) in the post-DCR phase compared to the pre-DCR and transient DCR phases. Volume of crystalloid resuscitation was an independent predictor of mortality in the pre-DCR (OR [95% CI]: 1.071 [1.03-1.1], p = 0.01) and transient (OR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.14], p = 0.01) phases; however, it was not associated with mortality in the post-DCR phase (OR [95% CI]:1.01 [0.96-1.09], p = 0.1). Coagulopathy (p = 0.01) and acidosis (p = 0.02) were independently associated with mortality in all three phases. The implementation of DCR was associated with improved outcome in patients undergoing TL. There was a decrease in the use of damage control laparotomy, with a decrease in the use of crystalloid and an increase in the use of blood products. Prognostic study, level III.

Damage Control Resuscitation Protocol and the Management of Open Abdomens in Trauma Patients

Although the use of damage control laparotomy (DCL) is well established, the effect of damage control resuscitation (DCR) on the management of open abdomens is relatively poorly studied. The aim of the present study was to determine the predictors for failure to achieve primary fascial closure (PFC) after DCL in the setting of a massive transfusion (MT) and DCR. This is a retrospective review over a 12-year period of all patients that underwent MT and DCL. Patients who achieved PFC were compared with those who did not (NPFC). Student's t tests were used to compare the two groups. A multiple logistic regression model was performed to identify independent risk factors for failure to attain PFC. Of 174 patients, 101 achieved PFC. Mean (± standard deviation) age was 35.6 ± 14.9 years for PFC and 36.3 ± 14.0 years for NPFC (P = 0.75). Admission Glasgow Coma Scale score was 11.4 ± 4.6 for PFC and 10.6 ± 5.0 for NPFC (P = 0.25). Initial lactate (7.3 ± 3.8 vs 7.7 ± 4.1, P = 0.50), hemoglobin (11.3 ± 1.9 vs 11.0 ± 2.2, P = 0.43), systolic blood pressure (108 ± 44 vs 107 ± 35, P = 0.82), Injury Severity Score (34 ± 14 vs 36 ± 15, P = 0.32), and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Score (3.6 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.0, P = 0.13) were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in total blood products administered at 24 hours (46 ± 26 vs 49 ± 29 units, P = 0.45). Logistic regression identified increasing volume of crystalloid at 24 hours (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P = 0.047), earlier operative year (2.1; 1.52 to 2.91; P < 0.001), and increased number of procedures (0.32, 0.18 to 0.58; P < 0.001) as independent predictors for failure to obtain PFC. Injury severity is not associated with failure to achieve PFC, whereas administration of large-volume crystalloid resuscitation, increasing number procedures, and earlier year of DCL are independent predictors for failure to achieve PFC. Application of DCR to DCL techniques results in an improvement in ability to achieve PFC.

Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology.

Planned re-laparotomy or damage control laparotomy (DCL), first described by Dr. Harlan Stone in 1983, has become a widely utilized technique in a broad range of patients and operative situations. Studies have validated the use of DCL by demonstrating decreased mortality and morbidity in trauma, general surgery and abdominal vascular catastrophes. Indications for planned re-laparotomy include severe physiologic derangements, coagulopathy, concern for bowel ischemia, and abdominal compartment syndrome. The immunology of DCL patients is not well described in humans, but promising animal studies suggest a benefit from the open abdomen (OA) and several human trials on this subject are currently underway. Optimal critical care of patients with OA's, including sedation, paralysis, nutrition, antimicrobial and fluid management strategies have been associated with improved closure rates and recovery.

The conjoint effect of reduced crystalloid administration and decreased damage-control laparotomy use in the development of abdominal compartment syndrome

Anticipation of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a factor for performing damage-control laparotomy (DCL). Recent years have seen changes in resuscitation patterns and a decline in the use of DCL. We hypothesized that reductions in both crystalloid resuscitation and the use of DCL is associated with a reduced rate of ACS in trauma patients. We reviewed the records of all patients who underwent trauma laparotomies at our Level 1 trauma center over a 6-year period (2006-2011). We defined DCL as a trauma laparotomy in which the fascia was not closed at the initial operation. We defined ACS by elevated intravesical pressures and end-organ dysfunction. Our primary outcome measure was a development of ACS. A total of 799 patients were included. We noted a significant decrease in the DCL rate (39% in 2006 vs. 8% in 2011, p < 0.001), the crystalloid volume per patient (mean [SD], 12.8 [7.8] L in 2006 vs. 6.6 [4.2] L in 2011; p < 0.001), rate of ACS (7.4% in 2006 vs. 0% in 2011, p < 0.001), and mortality rate (22.8% in 2006 vs. 10.6% in 2011, p < 0.001). However, we noted no significant changes in the mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) (p = 0.09), in the mean abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score (p = 0.17), and in the mean blood product volume per patient (p = 0.67). On multivariate regression analysis, crystalloid resuscitation (p = 0.01) was the only significant factor associated with the development of ACS. Minimizing the use of crystalloids and DCL was associated with better outcomes and virtual elimination of ACS in trauma patients. With the adaption of new resuscitation strategies, goals for a trauma laparotomy should be definitive surgical care with abdominal closure. ACS is a rare complication in the era of damage-control resuscitation and may have been iatrogenic. Epidemiologic/therapeutic study, level IV.

Use of Damage Control and the Open Abdomen in Combat

Despite the well-documented use of damage control laparotomy (DCL) in civilian trauma, its use has not been well described in the combat setting. Therefore, we sought to document the use of DCL and to investigate its effect on patient outcome. Prospective data were collected on 1603 combat casualties injured between April 2003 and January 2009. One hundred seventy patients (11%) underwent an exploratory laparotomy (ex lap) in theater and comprised the study cohort. DCL was defined as an abbreviated ex lap resulting in an open abdomen. Patients were stratified by age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), mechanism of injury, and blood product administration. Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine risks factors for intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), hospital length of stay (HLOS), and the need for DCL. Mean age of the cohort was 24 ± 5 years, ISS was 21 ± 11, and 94 per cent sustained penetrating injury. Patients with DCL comprised 50.6 per cent (n = 86) of the study cohort and had significant increases in ICU admission (P < 0.001), ICU LOS (P < 0.001), HLOS (P < 0.05), ventilator days (P < 0.001), abdominal complications (P < 0.05), but not mortality (P = 0.65) compared with patients without DCL. When compared with the non-DCL group, patients undergoing DCL required significantly more blood products (packed red blood cells, fresh-frozen plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate; P < 0.001). Multivariate regression analyses revealed blood transfusion and GCS as significant risk factors for DCL (P < 0.05). Patients undergoing DCL had increased complications and resource use but not mortality compared with patients not undergoing DCL. The need for combat DCL may be different compared with civilian use. Prospective studies to evaluate outcomes of DCL are warranted.

Current Use of Damage-Control Laparotomy, Closure Rates, and Predictors of Early Fascial Closure at the First Take-Back

Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) is a lifesaving technique but carries significant morbidity. If DCL is over used and the factors that predict early fascial closure have not been fully evaluated. The purpose of the current study was to determine (1) the current rate of DCL, (2) the percentage of DCLs that are closed at first take-back, and (3) possible physiologic and resuscitative parameters predicting early fascial closure. A retrospective review of all trauma laparotomies from a Level I trauma center between January 2004 and December 2008 was performed. Patients were excluded if they died before first take-back. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Nine hundred thirty patients were eligible, 278 (30%) underwent DCL, 36 excluded for death before first take-back. Of the remaining 242 DCL patients, 83 (34%) were closed at first take-back and 159 (66%) were not closed at first take-back. These two groups were similar in injury severity, demographics, and prehospital and emergency department fluids and vitals. Median emergency department international normalized ratio (INR; 1.13 vs. 1.29, p = 0.010), post-op INR (1.4 vs. 1.5, p = 0.028), 24-hour fluids (11.9 L vs. 15.5 L, p = 0.006), peak post-op intra-abdominal pressure (IAP; 15 vs. 18, p < 0.001), and mortality (1.2% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.027) were different between groups. Multivariate analysis noted vacuum-assisted closure at initial laparotomy (Odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.63; p = 0.004) was an independent predictor of closure at first take-back. However, post-op INR (Odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.03-0.97; p = 0.04) and post-op peak IAP (Odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95; p = 0.005) predicted failure to close fascia at first take-back. In similarly injured DCL patients, increased post-op INR and IAP predicted inability to achieve primary fascial closure on first take-back, while use of the vacuum-assisted closure was associated with increased likelihood of early fascial closure. At a busy academic Level I trauma center, the current rate of DCL among those undergoing emergent laparotomy is 30%. Whether this represents optimal use or overutilization of this technique still needs to be determined.

Damage Control Laparotomy: A Vital Tool Once Overused

Trauma surgery is in constant evolution as is the use of damage control laparotomy (DCL). The purpose of this study was to report the change in usage of DCL over time and its effect on outcome. Trauma patients requiring laparotomies during a 3-year (2006-2008) period were reviewed. DCL was defined as laparotomy when fascia was not closed at the first operation. There were 14,534 trauma patients evaluated, and 843 laparotomies were performed on 532 patients during the study period. The number of patients requiring open laparotomies slightly increased while the demographics and Injury Severity Score were similar during the study period. The number of patient requiring DCL significantly decreased from 36.3% (53 of 146) in 2006 to 8.8% (15 of 170) in 2008 (p < 0.001). During this same time period, the mortality rate for patients requiring open laparotomy significantly decreased from 21.9% in 2006 to 12.9% in 2008 (p = 0.05). The decreased use of DCL resulted in a 33.3% reduction in the number of laparotomies performed. The decrease in average costs and charges is projected to result in savings of $2.2 million and $5.8 million, respectively. The use of DCL was significantly decreased by 78% during the study with significantly improved outcome. The improved outcome and decreased resource utilization can reduce health care costs and charges. Although DCL may be a vital aspect of trauma surgery, it can be used more selectively with improved outcome.