| Literature DB >> 27413394 |
Frederico Teixeira1, Carlos Augusto Metidieri Menegozzo1, Sérgio Dias do Couto Netto1, Renato S Poggeti1, Francisco de Sales Collet E Silva1, Dario Birolini1, Celso de Oliveira Bernini1, Edivaldo Massazo Utiyama1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selective management of penetrating neck injuries has been considered the standard of care with minimal risks to patient safety. In a previous non-randomized prospective study conducted at our center, selective management proved to be safe and reduced unnecessary exploratory cervicotomies. In the present study, the role of clinical examination and selective diagnostic tests were assessed by reviewing demographic and clinical data. A comparison of results between two groups (mandatory surgical exploration versus selective surgical exploration) was made to check the safety of selective management in terms of the rates of morbidity and mortality.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical trauma; Neck injury; Penetrating trauma; Surgical selective management
Year: 2016 PMID: 27413394 PMCID: PMC4942947 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-016-0091-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Emerg Surg ISSN: 1749-7922 Impact factor: 5.469
Admission data of the 161 patients presenting with penetrating neck injuries
| Number of patients (%) | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 143 (88 %) |
| Female | 18 (12 %) |
| Mean Age (years) | 26 |
| Pre-hospital care | |
| Land Unit | 143 (89 %) |
| Aeromedic Unit | 2 (1 %) |
| Other | 16 (10 %) |
| Mechanism of Injury | |
| Gunshot Wound (GSW) | 29 (18 %) |
| Stab Wound | |
| Knife | 126 (78 %) |
| Other | 6 (4 %) |
| Injury Location | |
| Zone I | 53 (33 % |
| Zone II | 71 (44 %) |
| Zone III | 37 (23 %) |
| Management | |
| Selective Approach | 130 (81 %) |
| Mandatory Surgery | 31 (19 %) |
Mandatory surgery group: clinical findings
| Number of patients (%) | |
|---|---|
| Bleeding | 20 (64 %) |
| Expanding Hematoma | 7 (22 %) |
| Bubbling | 2 (6 %) |
| Hard Aerodigestive Symptoms | 1 (3 %) |
| Persistent hemorrhagic shock | 1 (3 %) |
Selective approach group (n = 130)
| Number of patients (%) | |
|---|---|
| Observation only | 96 (74 %) |
| Surgical Exploration | 34 (26 %) |
| Clinical Findings | |
| None | 39 (30 %) |
| Bleeding | 47 (36 %) |
| Disphagia or odinophagia | 11 (8 %) |
| Stable Hematoma | 10 (8 %) |
| Hoarseness | 9 (7 %) |
| Hemoptysis | 7 (5 %) |
| Emphysema | 6 (5 %) |
| Stridor | 1 (1 %) |
| Surgical Findings | |
| Pharingoesophageal Injury | 10 (29 %) |
| Laringotracheal Injury | 21 (62 %) |
| Combined Aerodigestive Injury | 3 (9 %) |
Trauma scores and complications
| Selective approach ( | Mandatory surgery ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ISS (mean) | 17 | 26 | |
| RTS (mean) | 7.62 | 5.83 | |
| Complications |
| ||
| Surgical site infection | 2 | 2 | |
| Haematoma | 1 | 1 | |
| Wound dehiscence | 2 | 0 | |
| Laryngeal recurrent injury | 1 | 0 | |
| Pharyngoesophageal fistulae | 0 | 1 | |
| Mortality | 0 | 3 |
|
Diagnostic accuracy in identifying lesions that required treatment
| PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|
| Doppler | 20 % [ | 100 % [ |
| Angiography | 80 % [ | 100 % [ |
| Endoscopic (aeordigestive) | 20 % [ | 100 % [ |
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value
Fig. 1Management Algorithm. *diagnosic studies should be used according to available resources and experience in each center