Nicolai Samuels1, Sarah Wesley1, Keyonna Williams1, Fengxia Yan2, Randi Smith3, Jonathan Nguyen1, Kahdi Udobi1, Richard Sola4. 1. Department of Surgery, Morehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Drive SW, Atlanta, GA, 30310, USA. 2. Department of Health and Preventive Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Drive SW, Atlanta, GA, 30310, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Emory School of Medicine, 69 Jesse Hill Jr. Dr. SE, 102, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Morehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Drive SW, Atlanta, GA, 30310, USA. rsola@msm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of contrast study after traumatic gastric repair, continues to be controversial. To that end, we aim to review the incidence, outcomes, and risk factors of patients undergoing contrast study after traumatic gastric repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center that sustained gastric injuries with subsequent repair between 2011 and 2018. Demographics, surgical interventions, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analysis included Chi-square/Fisher exact univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis with a 5% significance level. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients received a gastric repair, of whom 49 (21%) had a contrast study performed. Out of 49 patients with a contrast study, one was found to have a gastric leak. Mean time to contrast study was 6.3 ± 2.7 days. There was no statistically significant difference in post-operative complications between non-contrast and contrast study groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated a lack of statistical significance in clinical risk factors that would lead to obtaining a contrast study. CONCLUSION: Gastric leak after repair is rare and there is no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes when comparing patients who underwent contrast study to those who did not. Routine contrast study after traumatic gastric repair may not be necessary and further evidence is warranted to determine the risk factors for a selective contrast study.
PURPOSE: The role of contrast study after traumatic gastric repair, continues to be controversial. To that end, we aim to review the incidence, outcomes, and risk factors of patients undergoing contrast study after traumatic gastric repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center that sustained gastric injuries with subsequent repair between 2011 and 2018. Demographics, surgical interventions, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analysis included Chi-square/Fisher exact univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis with a 5% significance level. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients received a gastric repair, of whom 49 (21%) had a contrast study performed. Out of 49 patients with a contrast study, one was found to have a gastric leak. Mean time to contrast study was 6.3 ± 2.7 days. There was no statistically significant difference in post-operative complications between non-contrast and contrast study groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated a lack of statistical significance in clinical risk factors that would lead to obtaining a contrast study. CONCLUSION: Gastric leak after repair is rare and there is no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes when comparing patients who underwent contrast study to those who did not. Routine contrast study after traumatic gastric repair may not be necessary and further evidence is warranted to determine the risk factors for a selective contrast study.