G. Paul Dabrowski

Nonoperative management of abdominal gunshot wounds

Mandatory surgical exploration for gunshot wounds to the abdomen has been a surgical dictum for the greater part of this past century. Although nonoperative management of blunt solid organ injuries and low-energy penetrating injuries such as stab wounds is well established, the same is not true for gunshot wounds. The vast majority of patients who sustain a gunshot injury to the abdomen require immediate laparotomy to control bleeding and contain contamination. Nonoperative treatment of patients with a gunshot injury is gaining acceptance in only a highly selected subset of hemodynamically stable adult patients without peritonitis. Although the physical examination remains the cornerstone in the evaluation of patients with gunshot injury, other techniques such as computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, and laparoscopy allow accurate determination of intra-abdominal injury. The ability to exclude internal organ injury nonoperatively avoids the potential complications of unnecessary laparotomy. Clinical data to support selective nonoperative management of certain gunshot injuries to the abdomen are accumulating, but the approach has risks and requires careful collaborative management by emergency physicians and surgeons experienced in the care of penetrating injury.

Integrating emergency general surgery with a trauma service: impact on the care of injured patients.

BACKGROUND There has been considerable discussion on the national level on the future of trauma surgery as a specialty. One of the leading directions for the field is the integration of emergency general surgery as a wider and more attractive scope of practice. However, there is currently no information on how the addition of an emergency general surgery practice will affect the care of injured patients. We hypothesized that the care of trauma patients would be negatively affected by adding emergency general surgery responsibilities to a trauma service. METHODS Our institution underwent a system change in August 2001, where an emergency general surgery (ES) practice was added to an established trauma service. The ES practice included emergency department and in-house consultations for all urgent surgical problems except thoracic and vascular diseases. There were no trauma staff changes during the study period. Trauma registry data (demographics, injuries, injury severity, and procedures) and performance improvement data (peer-review judgments for all identified errors, denied days, audit filters, and deaths) were abstracted for two 15-month periods surrounding this system change. Chi-square, Fishers exact, and t tests provided between-group comparisons. RESULTS The trauma staff evaluated a total of 5,874 patients during the 30-month study. There were 1,400 (51%) trauma admissions in the pre-ES group and 1,504 (48%) in the post-ES group, of which 1,278 and 1,434, respectively, met severity criteria for report to our statewide database (Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study [PTOS]). There were 163 (12.7% of PTOS) deaths in the pre-ES group compared with 171 (11.9% PTOS) deaths in the post-ES group (p = not significant [NS]). There was one death determined to be preventable by the peer review process for the pre-ES group, and none in the post-ES group. Both groups had 10 potentially preventable deaths, with the remaining mortalities being categorized as nonpreventable (p = NS). Unexpected deaths by TRISS methodology were 36 (2.8%) and 41 (2.9%) for the two groups, respectively (p = NS). There was no difference in the number of provider-specific complications between the groups (23, [1.8%] vs. 19 [1.3%], p = NS). The addition of emergency surgery has resulted in an additional average daily workload of 1.3 cases and 1.2 admissions. CONCLUSION Despite an increase in trauma volume over the study period, the addition of emergency surgery to a trauma service did not affect the care of injured patients. The concept of adding emergency surgery responsibilities to trauma surgeons appears to be a valid way to increase operative experience without compromising care of the injured patient.

Training in trauma surgery: quantitative and qualitative aspects of a new paradigm for fellowship.

Objective: To describe outcomes from a clinical trauma surgical education program that places the board-eligible/board-certified fellow in the role of the attending surgeon (fellow-in-exception [FIE]) during the latter half of a 2-year trauma/surgical critical care fellowship. Summary Background Data: National discussions have begun to explore the question of optimal methods for postresidency training in surgery. Few objective studies are available to evaluate current training models. Methods: We analyzed provider-specific data from both our trauma registry and performance improvement (PI) databases. In addition, we performed TRISS analysis when all data were available. Registry and PI data were analyzed as 2 groups (faculty trauma surgeons and FIEs) to determine experience, safety, and trends in errors. We also surveyed graduate fellows using a questionnaire that evaluated perceptions of training and experience on a 6-point Likert scale. Results: During a 4-year period 7,769 trauma patients were evaluated, of which 46.3% met criteria to be submitted to the PA Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS, ie, more severe injury). The faculty group saw 5,885 patients (2,720 PTOS); the FIE group saw 1,884 patients (879 PTOS). The groups were similar in respect to mechanism of injury (74% blunt; 26% penetrating both groups) and injury severity (mean ISS faculty 10.0; FIEs 9.5). When indexed to patient contacts, FIEs did more operations than the faculty group (28.4% versus 25.6%; P < 0.05). Death rates were similar between groups (faculty 10.5%; FIEs 10.0%). Analysis of deaths using PI and TRISS data failed to demonstrate differences between the groups. Analysis of provider-specific errors demonstrated a slightly higher rate for FIEs when compared with faculty when indexed to PTOS cases (4.1% versus 2.1%; P < 0.01). For both groups, errors in management were more common than errors in technique. Twenty-one (91%) of twenty-three surveys were returned. Fellows’ feelings of preparedness to manage complex trauma patients improved during the fellowship (mean 3.2 prior to fellowship versus 4.5 after first year versus 5.8 after FIE year; P < 0.05 by ANOVA). Eighty percent rated the FIE educational experience “great -5” or “exceptional– 6.” Eighty-five percent consider the current structure of the fellowship (with FIE year) as ideal. Ninety percent would repeat the fellowship. Conclusion: The educational experience and training improvement offered by the inclusion of a FIE period during a trauma fellowship is exceptional. Patient outcomes are unchanged. The potential for an increased error rate is present during this period of clinical autonomy and must be addressed when designing the methods of supervision of care to assure concurrent senior staff review.

Pancreatic injury in damage control laparotomies : Is pancreatic resection safe during the initial laparotomy?

OBJECTIVES While damage control (DC) techniques such as the rapid control of exsanguinating haemorrhage and gastrointestinal contamination have improved survival in severely injured patients, the optimal pancreatic injury management strategy in these critically injured patients requiring DC is uncertain. We sought to characterise pancreatic injury patterns and outcomes to better determine optimal initial operative management in the DC population. MATERIALS AND METHODS A two-centre, retrospective review of all patients who sustained pancreatic injury requiring DC in two urban trauma centres during 1997-2004 revealed 42 patients. Demographics and clinical characteristics were analysed. Study groups based on operative management (pack+/-drain vs. resection) were compared with respect to clinical characteristics and hospital outcomes. RESULTS The 42 patients analysed were primarily young (32.8+/-16.2 years) males (38/42, 90.5%) who suffered penetrating (30/42, 71.5%) injuries of the pancreas and other abdominal organs (41/42, 97.6%). Of the 12 patients who underwent an initial pancreatic resection (11 distal pancreatectomies, 1 pancreaticoduodenectomy), all distal pancreatectomies were performed in entirety during the initial laparotomy while pancreaticoduodenectomy reconstruction was delayed until subsequent laparotomy. Comparing the pack+/-drain and resection groups, no difference in mechanism, vascular injury, shock, ISS, or complications was revealed. Mortality was substantial (packing only, 70%; packing with drainage, 25%, distal pancreatectomy, 55%, pancreaticoduodenectomy, 0%) in the study population. CONCLUSIONS The presence of shock or major vascular injury dictates the extent of pancreatic operative intervention. While pancreatic resection may be required in selected damage control patients, packing with pancreatic drainage effectively controls both haemorrhage and abdominal contamination in patients with life-threatening physiological parameters and may lead to improved survival. Increased mortality rates in patients who were packed without drainage suggest that packing without drainage is ineffective and should be abandoned.

PRACTICAL NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT IN THE TRAUMA INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

Critically injured patients offer an exceptional challenge to intensivists. Pre-existing disease states complicate horrendous disruptions in normal anatomy and physiology. The hypermetabolic, catabolic response brought on by trauma, shock, or sepsis serves to reprioritize the normal nutritional homeostasis of the body. Appropriate nutritional support not only minimizes the wasting effects of hypermetabolism but potentially offers additional benefits. Studies of feeding routes, substrates, and timing suggest that adequate support may decrease infectious complications and modulate the metabolic response. Injured patients are a heterogenous group, making the definition of adequate support and interpretation of experimental findings difficult. Ultimately, most severely injured patients need directed nutritional support because of their inability to ingest nourishment by conventional means. This article emphasizes a practical approach to these patients.