Use Of Damage Control Surgery Research Articles

Damage control surgery: old concepts and new indications.

While the principles of damage control surgery - rapid hemorrhage and contamination control with correction of physiologic derangements followed by delayed definitive reconstruction - have remained consistent, forms of damage control intervention have evolved and proliferated dramatically. This review aims to provide a historic perspective of the early trends of damage control surgery as well as an updated understanding of its current state and future trends. Physiologically depleted patients in shock due to both traumatic and nontraumatic causes are often treated with damage control laparotomy and surgical principles. Damage control surgery has also been shown to be safe and effective in thoracic and orthopedic injuries. Damage control resuscitation is used in conjunction with surgical source control to restore patient physiology and prevent further collapse. The overuse of damage control laparotomy, however, is associated with increased morbidity and complications. With advancing technology, catheter- and stent-based endovascular modalities are playing a larger role in the resuscitation and definitive care of patients. Optimal outcome in the care of the most severely injured patients requires judicious use of damage control surgery supplemented by advancements in resuscitation and surgical adjuncts.

Ukraine's Experience with Management of Combat Casualties Using NATO's Four-Tier "Changing as Needed" Healthcare System.

The full-scale war with Russia on the territory of Ukraine has revealed several problems related to care of the wounded. In this article, we summarize the mechanisms of injury and injuries sustained for the period February to April 2022, focusing on extremity injuries. We compared these to a period of lower-intensity warfare in 2014-2021. In both cases, we report patients treated by the National Military Medical Clinical Center (NMMCC) in Kyiv. We also sought to evaluate the care of the wounded from an organizational viewpoint, taking into account the four-level system of care also used by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Third, we sought to understand lessons learned that could improve the care of the wounded. During the 2022 conflict, the percentage of patients with extremity wounds who had long bone fractures increased and the percentage of people with long bone fractures who had bone defects increased, compared with 2014-2021. This may be due to the higher blast energy from the weapons used in the current conflict. Second, we adapted the four-level NATO system of care. Level 2 (first level hospital) care was provided by civilian hospitals close to the fighting, rather than mobile military hospitals. Level 3 (specialized) and 4 (highly specialized) care were combined into one hospital (NMMCC). This is the first description of flexible use of NATO's four levels. Finally, a major lesson learned was the need to improve use of damage control surgery.

STRUCTURE OF TRAUMATIC INJURIES AND EXPERIENCE IN THE TREATMENT OF THE WOUNDED PATIENTS, AS A RESULT OF HOSTILITIES IN THE FIRST DAYS OF RUSSIA’S ATTACK ON UKRAINE

Introduction. All the gunshot wounds are of high-energy. Gunshot and blast injuries, in most cases, are multiple, varying in depth and area of the wound surface. From the first day of the full-scale invasion of Russian troops (February 24, 2022), many victims of hostilities on the right bank of the Dnipro river in Kyiv were hospitalized in our hospital, which is one of the clinical bases of the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care of the Bogomolets National Medical University. Dozens of wounded patients needed simultaneous interventions, and the presence of only 5 operating tables in the facility did not prevent the provision of appropriate qualified medical care to 6-8 critical patients at the same time.
 The goal of the work. To determine the structure and severity of traumatic injuries received as a result of hostilities.
 Materials and methods. In the study a prospective analysis of 89 patients who were injured in hostilities for the period from February 24 and March 3 2022, and were hospitalized in one of the clinical bases of the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care of the Bogomolets National Medical University was conducted.
 Results and discussion. Lesions of one anatomical area occurred in 54 people (60.7%), lesions of two or more anatomical areas – in 35 people (39.3%). Most injured patients – 61 (68.5%), required from 2 to 6 surgeries, which was due to damage to various anatomical areas or the need for phased surgical interventions, including the use of damage-control surgery. Of the 66 patients with limb and pelvic bone injuries, mine explosions or gunshot fractures of the long bones of arms and legs, 41 were injured, and all were treated on an orthopedic basis. Damage-control surgery for injuries of abdominal organs was used in 5 wounded patients. In two patients, damage-control surgery was used for injuries of the pleural cavity. 9 patients (10.1%) of the 89 hospitalized with traumatic injuries received as a result of hostilities died.
 Conclusion. Extremities and pelvic bones injuries dominate in the structure of combat injuries – 66 (43.7%) patients; chest injuries were in 31 (20.5%) patients; head and neck injuries in 27 (17.9%) patients; abdominal solid organs and pelvic organs injuries in 19 (12.6%) patients; facial injuries in 8 (5.3%) patients. Damage of two or more anatomical areas occurred in 39.3% of patients affected by the hostilities. Most of the wounded patients – 68.5%, required from 2 to 6 surgeries.

Analysis of Later Stage Morbidity and Mortality after Pancreatic Surgery Because of Abdominal Trauma

Background: Pancreatic trauma surgery is a complicated surgical procedure for severe pancreatic injuries, accompanied by a high incidence of complications and mortality. This study was designed to explore the long-term prognosis of pancreatic surgery because of abdominal trauma. Patients and Methods: The clinical data of 103 patients who were admitted to Jinling Hospital between August 2012 and August 2019 who had pancreatic trauma surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Results: All admissions involved pancreatic trauma surgery performed at an outside hospital network, which later transferred patients to our institution because of post-operative later-stage complications. Eight patients received American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade 1 or 2 pancreatic injuries and 95 received AAST grade 3, 4, or 5 pancreatic injuries. The primary surgical management of pancreatic injuries included drainage of the pancreatic injury (n = 28), repair of the pancreas (n = 35), partial pancreatectomy (n = 15), pancreaticojejunostomy (n = 6), and pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 19). The most common mechanism of trauma was motor vehicle collision (n = 72), crush injury (n = 26), and stab wound (n = 5). Of 103 patients suffered varying degrees of gastrointestinal fistulae and intra-abdominal infections, there were 66 cases of pancreatic fistulae (64.1%), 49 cases of enteric fistulae (47.6%), 26 cases of colonic fistulae (25.2%), 14 cases of gastric or gastrointestinal anastomotic fistulae (13.6%), and 13 cases of biliary fistulae (12.6%). Ninety-five patients survived and eight patients died after therapy; the mean length of intensive care unit stay was 33 days. The number of patients who underwent emergency pancreaticoduodenectomy (EPD), the incidence of blood transfusion, the number of fistulae per patient, and the duration of mechanical ventilation and bacteremia in the mortality group were substantially higher than in the survival group (p < 0.05 each). The patients who underwent EPD had more grade 5 pancreatic injuries, more blood transfusions, higher peak total bilirubin, greater numbers of fistulae and open abdomen, and longer duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality than other patients (p < 0.05 each). Conclusions: The grade of pancreatic injury was associated with mortality and post-operative complications. The post-operative mortality and occurrence of complications of EPD because of abdominal trauma were significant; use of damage control surgery could potentially reduce the morbidity and mortality related to this procedure.

Indications for the Appropriate Use of Damage Control Surgery and Damage Control Interventions in Civilian Trauma Patients

In patients undergoing emergent operation for trauma, surgeons must decide whether to perform a definitive or damage control (DC) procedure. DC surgery (abbreviated initial surgery followed by planned reoperation after a period of resuscitation in the intensive care unit) has been suggested to most benefit patients more likely to succumb from the “vicious cycle” of hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy and/or postoperative abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) than the failure to complete organ repairs. However, there currently exists no unbiased evidence to support that DC surgery benefits injured patients. Further, the procedure is associated with substantial morbidity, long lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stay, increased healthcare resource utilization, and possibly a reduced quality of life among survivors. Therefore, it is important to ensure that DC laparotomy is only utilized in situations where the expected procedural benefits are expected to outweigh the expected procedural harms. In this manuscript, we review the comparative effectiveness and safety of DC surgery when used for different procedural indications. We also review recent studies suggesting variation in use of DC surgery between trauma centers and the potential harms associated with overuse of the procedure. We also review published consensus indications for the appropriate use of DC surgery and specific abdominal, pelvic, and vascular DC interventions in civilian trauma patients. We conclude by providing recommendations as to how the above list of published appropriateness indications may be used to guide medical and surgical education, quality improvement, and surgical practice.

Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

BackgroundAlthough damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes).MethodsWe searched 11 databases (1950–April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions.ResultsAmong 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications.ConclusionsFew indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

Experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of a damage control surgery in combined radiation-mechanical injuries

Relevance. Currently, damage control surgery (DCS) is actively used in polytrauma. However, data on the effectiveness of this tactic for combined radiation-mechanical injuries (CRMI) in the available literature was not found.Objective. To develop a model of CRMI on small laboratory animals (rabbits), which allows studying the effectiveness of the use of DCS in comparison with the early total care surgery tactics.Methods. A model of a severe CRMI was proposed. The animals were subjected to a generally uniform short-term gammairradiation, and then they suffered a liver injury on the background of blood loss of 40% of the blood volume and hypothermia. After modeling the lesion, a comparison was made of the effectiveness of the tactics of the DCS and the early total care surgery tactics. During the study, the following indicators were evaluated: the average life expectancy and mortality of animals, changes in the cellular composition of peripheral blood, features of behavioral reactions to irradiation, the amount of blood loss during the implementation of the surgical intervention.Results and their analysis. The experiment showed that the tactics of the DCS have an advantage over the traditional tactics of a one-time exhaustive operation in the case of the CRMI. When performing DCS, there was no death of rabbits on the 1st day after the operation, when implementing early total care surgery - 3 rabbits died, besides, the mortality was absolute, while with DCS one rabbit survived (12.5%). The final operation at the DCS occurs prior to the beginning of the acute period of CRMI, which corresponds to the requirements of the instructions for the treatment of CRMI. In the course of the study, it was found that the proposed model of CRMI contributes to the formation of the phenomenon of mutual burdening and, as a result, complicates both the radiation and mechanical components of the lesion occurs.Conclusion The proposed experimental model for the application of severe CRMI helps to explore DCS tactics in the treatment of this pathology. DCS is a promising method of surgical treatment of CRMI, however, for more accurate extrapolation of data from animal to human, additional research on large laboratory animals is required.

Impact of initial temporary abdominal closure in damage control surgery: a retrospective analysis

BackgroundDamage control surgery has revolutionized trauma surgery. Use of damage control surgery allows for resuscitation and reversal of coagulopathy at the risk of loss of abdominal domain and intra-abdominal complications. Temporary abdominal closure is possible with multiple techniques, the choice of which may affect ability to achieve primary fascial closure and further complication.MethodsA retrospective analysis of all trauma patients requiring damage control laparotomy upon admission to an ACS-verified level one trauma center from 2011 to 2016 was performed. Demographic and clinical data including ability and time to attain primary fascial closure, as well as complication rates, were recorded. The primary outcome measure was ability to achieve primary fascial closure during initial hospitalization.ResultsTwo hundred and thirty-nine patients met criteria for inclusion. Primary skin closure (57.7%), ABThera™ VAC system (ABT) (15.1%), Bogota bag (BB) (25.1%), or a modified Barker’s vacuum-packing (BVP) (2.1%) were used in the initial laparotomy. Patients receiving skin-only closure had significantly higher rates of primary fascial closure and lower hospital mortality, but also significantly lower mean lactate, base deficit, and requirement for massive transfusion. Between ABT or BB, use of ABT was associated with increased rates of fascial closure. Multivariate regression revealed primary skin closure to be significantly associated with primary fascial closure while BB was associated with failure to achieve fascial closure.ConclusionsPrimary skin closure is a viable option in the initial management of the open abdomen, although these patients demonstrated less injury burden in our study. Use of vacuum-assisted dressings continues to be the preferred method for temporary abdominal closure in damage control surgery for trauma.

Damage control surgery: current state and future directions.

Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a staged surgical approach to the treatment of critically injured trauma patients. Originally described in the context of hepatic trauma and postinjury-induced coagulopathy, the indications for DCS have expanded to the management of extra abdominal trauma and to the management of nontraumatic acute abdominal emergencies. Despite being an accepted treatment algorithm, DCS is based on a limited evidence with current concerns of the variability in practice indications, rates and adverse outcomes in poorly selected patient cohorts. Recent efforts have attempted to synthesize evidence-based indication to guide clinical practice. Significant progress in trauma-based resuscitation techniques has led to improved outcomes in injured patients and a reduction in the requirement of DCS techniques. DCS remains an important treatment strategy in the management of specific patient cohorts. Continued developments in early trauma care will likely result in a further decline in the required use of DCS in severely injured patients.

Opinions of Practicing Surgeons on the Appropriateness of Published Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Trauma Patients: An International Cross-Sectional Survey

Variation in use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may be partially driven by surgeon uncertainty as to when it is appropriately indicated. We sought to determine opinions of practicing surgeons on the appropriateness of published indications for trauma DC surgery. We asked 384 trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to nominate 1 to 3 surgeons at their center to participate in a survey about DC surgery. We then asked nominated surgeons their opinions on the appropriateness (benefit-to-harm ratio) of 43 literature-derived indications for use of DC surgery in adult civilian trauma patients. In total, 232 (64.8%) trauma centers nominated 366 surgeons, of whom 201 (56.0%) responded. Respondents rated 15 (78.9%) preoperative and 23 (95.8%) intraoperative indications to be appropriate. Indications respondents agreed had the greatest expected benefit included a temperature <34°C, arterial pH <7.2, and laboratory-confirmed (international normalized ratio/prothrombin time and/or partial thromboplastin time >1.5 times normal) or clinically observed coagulopathy in the pre- or intraoperative setting; administration of >10 units of packed red blood cells; requirement for a resuscitative thoracotomy in the emergency department; and identification of a juxtahepatic venous injury or devascularized or destroyed pancreas, duodenum, or pancreaticoduodenal complex during operation. Ratings were consistent across subgroups of surgeons with different training, experience, and practice settings. We identified 38 indications that practicing surgeons agreed appropriately justified the use of DC surgery. Until further studies become available, these indications constitute a consensus opinion that can be used to guide practice in the current era of changing trauma resuscitation practices.

Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Civilian Trauma Patients: A Content Analysis and Expert Appropriateness Rating Study.

To characterize and evaluate indications for use of damage control (DC) surgery in civilian trauma patients. Although DC surgery may improve survival in select, severely injured patients, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity, suggesting that it should be used only when appropriately indicated. Two investigators used an abbreviated grounded theory method to synthesize indications for DC surgery reported in peer-reviewed articles between 1983 and 2014 into a reduced number of named, content-characteristic codes representing unique indications. An international panel of trauma surgery experts (n = 9) then rated the appropriateness (expected benefit-to-harm ratio) of the coded indications for use in surgical practice. The 1107 indications identified in the literature were synthesized into 123 unique pre- (n = 36) and intraoperative (n = 87) indications. The panel assessed 101 (82.1%) of these indications to be appropriate. The indications most commonly reported and assessed to be appropriate included pre- and intraoperative hypothermia (median temperature <34°C), acidosis (median pH <7.2), and/or coagulopathy. Others included 5 different injury patterns, inability to control bleeding by conventional methods, administration of a large volume of packed red blood cells (median >10 units), inability to close the abdominal wall without tension, development of abdominal compartment syndrome during attempted abdominal wall closure, and need to reassess extent of bowel viability. This study identified a comprehensive list of candidate indications for use of DC surgery. These indications provide a practical foundation to guide surgical practice while studies are conducted to evaluate their impact on patient care and outcomes.

Not All Abdomens Are the Same: A Comparison of Damage Control Surgery for Intra-abdominal Sepsis versus Trauma

Damage control surgery (DCS) was developed to manage exsanguinating trauma patients, but is increasingly applied to the management of peritoneal sepsis and abdominal catastrophes. Few manuscripts compare the outcomes of these surgeries on disparate patient populations. A multi-institutional three group propensity score matched case cohort study comparing penetrating trauma (PT-DCS), blunt trauma (BT-DCS), and intraperitoneal sepsis (IPS-DCS) was performed comparing patients treated with DSC between 2008 and 2013. Propensity scoring was performed using demographic and presenting physiologic data. Four hundred and twelve patients were treated with DCS across two institutions. Propensity matching for age, gender, and initial Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 80 identified 80 patients per group for comparison. Rate of primary fascial closure was lowest in the IPS-DCS group, and highest in the penetrating trauma DCS group. Intra-abdominal complication rates were highest in the IPS-DCS group. IPS-DCS had increased time to definitive closure compared with the other two groups (RR 1.8; 1.3-2.2; P < 0.03). Mortality at 90 days was highest in the IPS-DCS group and patients whose definitive closure was delayed >eight days were more than twice the risk of death at 90 days across all groups. (RR 2.15; 1.2-3.5; P < 0.002). Expected outcomes after the use of DCS for trauma and emergency general surgery are quite different. Despite this difference, prompt abdominal closure at the earliest possible opportunity afforded the best outcome in patients managed via DCS.

Increased pressure within the abdominal compartment: intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome.

This article reviews recent developments related to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH)/abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and clinical practice guidelines published in 2013. IAH/ACS often develops because of the acute intestinal distress syndrome. Although the incidence of postinjury ACS is decreasing, IAH remains common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality among critically ill/injured patients. Many risk factors for IAH include those findings suggested to be indications for use of damage control surgery in trauma patients. Medical management strategies for IAH/ACS include sedation/analgesia, neuromuscular blocking and prokinetic agents, enteral decompression tubes, interventions that decrease fluid balance, and percutaneous catheter drainage. IAH/ACS may be prevented in patients undergoing laparotomy by leaving the abdomen open where appropriate. If ACS cannot be prevented with medical or surgical management strategies or treated with percutaneous catheter drainage, guidelines recommend urgent decompressive laparotomy. Use of negative pressure peritoneal therapy for temporary closure of the open abdomen may improve the systemic inflammatory response and patient-important outcomes. In the last 15 years, investigators have better clarified the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and appropriate prevention of IAH/ACS. Subsequent study should be aimed at understanding which treatments effectively lower intra-abdominal pressure and whether these treatments ultimately affect patient-important outcomes.

Nutrition Support in the Open Abdomen.

Early provision of enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill and injured patients has become standard practice in surgical intensive care units (ICUs) due to its proven role in reducing septic complications. Increasingly, intensivists are confronted with patients with an open abdomen due to the use of damage control surgery and the recognition of the abdominal compartment syndrome; the role and timing of EN in these challenging patients continue to be debated. Patients with an open abdomen are often among the sickest in the ICU and hence could benefit from early nutrition support. However, the exposed abdominal viscera can understandably create anxiety regarding the initiation of EN; there is theoretic concern over exacerbation of bowel distention with resultant inability to close the abdomen and an increased aspiration risk due to paralytic ileus. Recent studies have investigated the utility of EN in the patient with an open abdomen, addressing these clinical concerns. The goal of this clinical review is to provide guidance to physicians caring for these complex patients.

Changes in the management of liver trauma leading to reduced mortality: 15-year experience in a major trauma centre.

Worldwide, the evolution of management of liver injury has resulted in improved outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the trend in the management and outcomes of patients with liver injury. Primary outcomes were defined as mortality and hospital length of stay. The secondary aim was to identify independent predictors of mortality. This study utilized hospital trauma registry data of all trauma patients with liver injuries admitted from 1999 to 2013. Patients in this 15-year period were divided into three periods of 5 years each and compared in terms of demographics, management and outcomes. A total of 725 patients with hepatic trauma were included. Patient demographics were similar, except for an increase in patient transfers from rural locations. Non-operative management increased significantly. There was a significant increase in the use of damage control surgery with perihepatic packing in high-grade liver injuries managed operatively. Hepatic angioembolization commenced midway through the study period. The overall mortality decreased by approximately threefold (P < 0.001) and mortality within 24 h of arrival to hospital by approximately fivefold (P < 0.001). Controlling for independent predictive factors of mortality, the mortality within 24 h reduced from 18.8% in period 1 to 3.6% in period 3 (P = 0.001). At this institution, an integrated trauma service has led to an evolution in the management of hepatic trauma, favouring non-operative management, damage control surgery and the use of hepatic angioembolization. We experienced a significantly improved mortality within 24 h of arrival to hospital in patients with liver trauma.

Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review.

Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients. Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study. The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications.

Management of the open abdomen with the Abdominal Reapproximation Anchor dynamic fascial closure system

BackgroundWith the increased use of damage control surgery and open abdomens, there are growing challenges in achieving primary fascial closure. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review our experience using the Abdominal Reapproximation Anchor (ABRA; Canica Design Inc, Almonte, Ontario, Canada), a dynamic fascial closure system, to gain fascial apposition in complex abdominal surgical patients. MethodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent placement of the ABRA device to aid in abdominal closure was undertaken. Details including age, sex, the reason for an open abdomen, the number of operations, the time to primary closure, the success rate of primary closure, and complications related to the use of the ABRA were analyzed. ResultsBetween January 2006 and July 2011, 36 patient charts were identified. The average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 21.9 ± 6.9. There was a mean of 3.1 ± 1.8 laparotomies before ABRA placement for each patient, and the duration of ABRA placement until removal was 10.4 ± 6.1 days. Complete fascial apposition was achieved in 83% of the patients across the entire study and in 91% of the patients in the final 2 years. Component separation was used in 17% of cases. The incisional hernia rate was 13% at 6 months and 11% at 12 months. ConclusionsOur use of the ABRA system resulted in an 83% fascial apposition rate, which further improved when experience was taken into account. The incisional hernia rate was acceptable in this complicated patient group. This technique is an excellent addition to a surgeon’s armamentarium for complicated abdominal cases that require an open abdomen. Further prospective studies are planned to identify ideal candidates for this technique.

Improving Mortality Predictions in Trauma Patients Undergoing Damage Control Strategies

The increased use of damage control surgery in complex trauma patients requires accurate prognostic indicators. We compared the discriminatory capacity of commonly used trauma and intensive care unit (ICU) scores, including revised trauma score, injury severity scores, trauma score-injury severity scores, acute physiology and chronic health evaluations II, and clinical and laboratory parameters, on 83 consecutive trauma patients admitted to the ICU, undergoing damage control. Logistic regressions were built for mortality prediction within 30 days. Performances of the models were assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve from the models were compared. Overall mortality was 38.5 per cent. A "clinical" model was constructed including ICU admission pH and hypothermia (≤ 35 C °) and the number of packed red blood cells during the first 24 hours. This model was adjusted for age and demonstrated better discrimination for mortality prediction (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.8054) than injury severity score (P value = 0.049), abdominal trauma index (P value = 0.049), and acute physiology and chronic health evaluations II (P value = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in discrimination for mortality prediction between the "clinical" model and revised trauma score (P value = 0.4) and trauma score-injury severity score (P value = 0.4). We concluded that the combination of ICU admission pH and hypothermia and blood transfusions during 24 hours provided an excellent discriminatory capacity for mortality prediction in this complex patient population.

Combat damage control surgery

Although the use of damage control surgery for blunt and penetrating injury has been widely reported and defined, the use of damage control surgery on the battlefield (combat damage control surgery) has not been well detailed. Damage control surgery is now well established as the standard of care for severely injured civilian patients requiring emergent laparotomy in the United States. The civilian damage control paradigm is based on a "damage control trilogy." This trilogy comprises an abbreviated operation, intensive care unit resuscitation, and a return to the operating room for the definitive operation. The goal of damage control surgery and the triology is avoidance of irreversible physiological insult termed the lethal triad. The lethal triad comprises the vicious cycle of hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy. Although the damage control model involves the damage control trilogy, abbreviated operation, intensive care unit resuscitation, and definitive operation, all in the same surgical facility, the combat damage control paradigm must incorporate global evacuation through several military surgical facilities and involves up to ten stages to allow for battlefield evacuation, surgical operations, multiple resuscitations, and transcontinental transport. Combat damage control surgery represents many unique challenges for those who care for the severely injured patients in a combat zone.

Changing patterns in the management of penetrating abdominal trauma: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Damage control surgery (DCS) and treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome have had major impacts on care of the severely injured. The objective of this study was to see whether advances in critical care, DCS, and recognition of abdominal compartment syndrome have improved survival from penetrating abdominal injury (PAI). The care of 250 consecutive patients requiring laparotomy for PAI (1997-2000) was reviewed retrospectively. Organ injury patterns, survival, and use of DCS and its impact on outcome were compared with a similar experience reported in 1988. Two hundred fifty patients had a positive laparotomy for PAI. Twenty-seven (10.8%) required abdominal packing and 45 (17.9%) did not have fascial closure. Seven (2.8%) required emergency department thoracotomy and 21 (8.4%) required operating room thoracotomy. Two hundred seventeen (86.8%) survived overall. Small bowel (47.2%), colon (36.4%), and liver (34.4%) were most often injured. Mortality was associated with the number of organs injured (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.37; p < 0.001). Vascular injury was a risk factor for mortality (p < 0.001), as was need for DCS (p < 0.001), emergency department thoracotomy (p < 0.001), and operating room thoracotomy (p < 0.001). Seventy-nine percent of deaths occurred within 24 hours from refractory hemorrhagic shock. DCS was used in 17.9% (n = 45) versus 7.0% (n = 21) in 1988, with a higher survival rate (73.3% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.001). DCS was associated with significant morbidity including sepsis (42.4%, p < 0.001), intra-abdominal abscess (18.2%, p = 0.009), and gastrointestinal fistula (18.2%, p < 0.001). Penetrating abdominal organ injury patterns and survival from PAI have remained similar over the past decade. Death from refractory hemorrhagic shock in the first 24 hours remains the most common cause of mortality. DCS and the open abdomen are being used more frequently with improved survival but result in significant morbidity.