Arnulf Willms1, Christoph Güsgen2, Robert Schwab1, Rolf Lefering3, Sebastian Schaaf1, Johan Lock4, Erwin Kollig5, Christoph Jänig6, Dan Bieler5,7. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, German Armed Forces Central Hospital of Koblenz, Rübenacher Str. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany. 2. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, German Armed Forces Central Hospital of Koblenz, Rübenacher Str. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany. Christoph.Guesgen@web.de. 3. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of General, Transplantation, Vascular and Paediatric Surgery, University Hospital of Würzburg, VisceralWürzburg, Germany. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery, Reconstructive Surgery, Hand Surgery, Plastic Surgery, and Burn Medicine, German Armed Forces Central Hospital, Koblenz, Germany. 6. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, German Armed Forces Central Hospital, Koblenz, Germany. 7. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Heinrich Heine University Medical School, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Damage control surgery (DCS) is a standardized treatment concept in severe abdominal injury. Despite its evident advantages, DCS bears the risk of substantial morbidity and mortality, due to open abdomen therapy (OAT). Thus, identifying the suitable patients for that approach is of utmost importance. Furthermore, little is known about the use of DCS and the related outcome, especially in blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: Patients recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU® from 2008 to 2017, and with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9 and an abdominal injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 3 were included in that registry-based analysis. Patients with DCS and temporary abdominal closure (TAC) were compared with patients who were treated with a laparotomy and primary closure (non-DCS) and those who did receive non-operative management (NOM). Following descriptive analysis, a matched-pairs study was conducted to evaluate differences and outcomes between DCS and non-DCS group. Matching criteria were age, abdominal trauma severity, and hemodynamical instability at the scene. RESULTS: The injury mechanism was predominantly blunt (87.1%). Of the 8226 patients included, 2351 received NOM, 5011 underwent laparotomy and primary abdominal closure (non-DCS), and 864 were managed with DCS. Thus, 785 patient pairs were analysed. The rate of hepatic injuries AIS > 3 differed between the groups (DCS 50.3% vs. non-DCS 18.1%). DCS patients had a higher ISS (p = 0.023), required more significant volumes of fluids, more catecholamines, and transfusions (p < 0.001). More DCS patients were in shock at the accident scene (p = 0.022). DCS patients had a higher number of severe hepatic (AIS score ≥ 3) and gastrointestinal injuries and more vascular injuries. Most severe abdominal injuries in non-DCS patients were splenic injuries (AIS, 4 and 5) (52.1% versus 37.9%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: DCS is a strategy used in unstable trauma patients, severe hepatic, gastrointestinal, multiple abdominal injuries, and mass transfusions. The expected survival rates were achieved in such extreme trauma situations.
INTRODUCTION: Damage control surgery (DCS) is a standardized treatment concept in severe abdominal injury. Despite its evident advantages, DCS bears the risk of substantial morbidity and mortality, due to open abdomen therapy (OAT). Thus, identifying the suitable patients for that approach is of utmost importance. Furthermore, little is known about the use of DCS and the related outcome, especially in blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: Patients recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU® from 2008 to 2017, and with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 9 and an abdominal injury with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥ 3 were included in that registry-based analysis. Patients with DCS and temporary abdominal closure (TAC) were compared with patients who were treated with a laparotomy and primary closure (non-DCS) and those who did receive non-operative management (NOM). Following descriptive analysis, a matched-pairs study was conducted to evaluate differences and outcomes between DCS and non-DCS group. Matching criteria were age, abdominal trauma severity, and hemodynamical instability at the scene. RESULTS: The injury mechanism was predominantly blunt (87.1%). Of the 8226 patients included, 2351 received NOM, 5011 underwent laparotomy and primary abdominal closure (non-DCS), and 864 were managed with DCS. Thus, 785 patient pairs were analysed. The rate of hepatic injuries AIS > 3 differed between the groups (DCS 50.3% vs. non-DCS 18.1%). DCS patients had a higher ISS (p = 0.023), required more significant volumes of fluids, more catecholamines, and transfusions (p < 0.001). More DCS patients were in shock at the accident scene (p = 0.022). DCS patients had a higher number of severe hepatic (AIS score ≥ 3) and gastrointestinal injuries and more vascular injuries. Most severe abdominal injuries in non-DCS patients were splenic injuries (AIS, 4 and 5) (52.1% versus 37.9%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: DCS is a strategy used in unstable trauma patients, severe hepatic, gastrointestinal, multiple abdominal injuries, and mass transfusions. The expected survival rates were achieved in such extreme trauma situations.
Authors: Jose J Diaz; Daniel C Cullinane; William D Dutton; Rebecca Jerome; Richard Bagdonas; Jaroslaw W Bilaniuk; Jarolslaw O Bilaniuk; Bryan R Collier; John J Como; John Cumming; Maggie Griffen; Oliver L Gunter; John Kirby; Larry Lottenburg; Nathan Mowery; William P Riordan; Niels Martin; Jon Platz; Nicole Stassen; Eleanor S Winston Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-06
Authors: Osvaldo Chiara; Stefania Cimbanassi; Walter Biffl; Ari Leppaniemi; Sharon Henry; Thomas M Scalea; Fausto Catena; Luca Ansaloni; Arturo Chieregato; Elvio de Blasio; Giorgio Gambale; Giovanni Gordini; Guiseppe Nardi; Pietro Paldalino; Francesco Gossetti; Paolo Dionigi; Giuseppe Noschese; Gregorio Tugnoli; Sergio Ribaldi; Sebastian Sgardello; Stefano Magnone; Stefano Rausei; Anna Mariani; Francesca Mengoli; Salomone di Saverio; Maurizio Castriconi; Federico Coccolini; Joseph Negreanu; Salvatore Razzi; Carlo Coniglio; Francesco Morelli; Maurizio Buonanno; Monica Lippi; Liliana Trotta; Annalisa Volpi; Luca Fattori; Mauro Zago; Paolo de Rai; Fabrizio Sammartano; Roberto Manfredi; Emiliano Cingolani Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: M Hommes; S Chowdhury; D Visconti; P H Navsaria; J E J Krige; D Cadosch; A J Nicol Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.693