J. Abba

Current management of severe pelvic and perineal trauma

Mortality associated with pelvic and perineal trauma (PPT) has fallen from 25% to 10% in the last decade thanks to progress accomplished in medical, surgical and interventional radiology domains (Dyer and Vrahas, 2006) [1]. The management strategy depends on the hemodynamic status of the patient (stable, unstable or extremely unstable). Open trauma requires specific treatment in addition to control of bleeding. All surgical centers can be confronted some day with patients with hemorrhagic PPT and for this reason, all surgeons should be familiar with the initial management. In expert centers, management of patients with severe PPT is complex, multidisciplinary and often requires several re-interventions. Obstetrical and sexual trauma, also requiring specific management, will not be dealt with herein.

Management of splenic and pancreatic trauma.

The spleen and pancreas are at risk for injury during abdominal trauma. The spleen is more commonly injured because of its fragile structure and its position immediately beneath the ribs. Injury to the more deeply placed pancreas is classically characterized by discordance between the severity of pancreatic injury and its initial clinical expression. For the patient who presents with hemorrhagic shock and ultrasound evidence of major hemoperitoneum, urgent damage control laparotomy is essential; if splenic injury is the cause, prompt hemostatic splenectomy should be performed. Direct pancreatic injury is rarely the cause of major hemorrhage unless a major neighboring vessel is injured, but if there is destruction of the pancreatic head, a two-stage pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) may be indicated. At open laparotomy when the patients hemodynamic status can be stabilized, it may be possible to control splenic bleeding without splenectomy; it is always essential to search for injury to the pancreatic duct and/or the adjacent duodenum. Pancreatic contusion without ductal rupture is usually treated by drain placement adjacent to the injury; ductal injuries of the pancreatic body or tail are treated by resection (distal pancreatectomy with or without splenectomy), with generally benign consequences. For injuries of the pancreatic head with pancreatic duct disruption, wide drainage is usually performed because emergency PD is a complex gesture prone to poor results. Postoperatively, the placement of a ductal stent by endoscopic retrograde catheterization may be decided, while management of an isolated pancreatic fistula is often straightforward. Non-operative management is the rule for the trauma victim who is hemodynamically stable. In addition to the clinical examination and conventional laboratory tests, investigations should include an abdominothoracic CT scan with contrast injection, allowing identification of all traumatized organs and assessment of the severity of injury. In this context, non-operative management (NOM) has gradually become the standard as long as the patient remains hemodynamically stable and there is no suspicion of injury to hollow viscera, with the patient being carefully monitored on a surgical service. The development of arteriography with splenic artery embolization has increased the rate of splenic salvage; this can be performed electively based on specific indications (blush on CT, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula), and may also be considered for severe splenic injury, abundant hemoperitoneum, or severe polytrauma. For pancreatic injury, in addition to CT scan, magnetic resonance pancreatography (MRCP) or even endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may be necessary to identify a ductal rupture. If the pancreatic duct is intact, laboratory and CT imaging surveillance is performed just as for splenic injury. In case of pancreatic ductal injury, ERCP stenting can be considered. However, if this is unsuccessful, the therapeutic decision can be difficult: while NOM can still be successful, complications may arise that are difficult to treat while distal pancreatectomy, although initially more agressive may avoid these complications if performed early.

Management of pancreatic trauma

INTRODUCTIONnPancreatic trauma (PT) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; the therapeutic options remain debated.nnnMATERIAL AND METHODSnRetrospective study of PT treated in the University Hospital of Grenoble over a 22-year span. The decision for initial laparotomy depended on hemodynamic status as well as on associated lesions. Main pancreatic duct lesions were always searched for. PT lesions were graded according to the AAST classification.nnnRESULTSnOf a total of 46 PT, 34 were grades II or I. Hemodynamic instability led to immediate laparotomy in 18 patients, for whom treatment was always drainage of the pancreatic bed; morbidity was 30%. Eight patients had grade III injuries, six of whom underwent immediate operation: three underwent splenopancreatectomy without any major complications while the other three who had simple drainage required re-operation for peritonitis, with one death related to pancreatic complications. Four patients had grades IV or V PT: two pancreatoduodenectomies were performed, with no major complication, while one patient underwent duodenal reconstruction with pancreatic drainage, complicated by pancreatic and duodenal fistula requiring a hospital stay of two months. The post-trauma course was complicated for all patients with main pancreatic duct involvement. Our outcomes were similar to those found in the literature.nnnCONCLUSIONnIn patients with distal PT and main pancreatic duct involvement, simple drainage is associated with high morbidity and mortality. For proximal PT, the therapeutic options of drainage versus pancreatoduodenectomy must be weighed; pancreatoduodenectomy may be unavoidable when the duodenum is injured as well. Two-stage (resection first, reconstruction later) could be an effective alternative in the emergency setting when there are other associated traumatic lesions.

Gastrobronchial Fistula: A Serious Complication of Sleeve Gastrectomy. Results of a French Multicentric Study

BackgroundGastrobronchial fistula (GBF) is a complication of esophageal, splenic, or antireflux surgeries and was recently described as a complication of bariatric surgery. Our aim was to study all cases of GBF after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) managed in five French university bariatric centers in order to establish the incidence and to evaluate the different treatments of this complication.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 13 patients which developed GBF after LSG performed between March 2007 and August 2012. Patients were separated into two groups: patients who had early gastric fistula which has evolved into a GBF (group 1) and patients who had a late gastric fistula, either directly GBF or a late gastric fistula evolved in GBF (group 2).ResultsGroup 1 consisted of five patients and group 2 of eight patients. All patients were undernourished at diagnosis. Management of GBF was a combined thoraco-abdominal surgery with gastrojejunal anastomosis (nu2009=u20095) or total gastrectomy (nu2009=u20091), multiple endoscopic treatment and thoracic surgery (nu2009=u20093), an endobronchial valve (nu2009=u20091), total gastrectomy and thoracic drainage (nu2009=u20091), and transorificial intubation with thoracic surgery or drainage (nu2009=u20092). There was no mortality. All GBF healed.ConclusionsGBF after LSG is a serious complication which is not anecdotal. Most of the early gastric fistulas occuring after LSG become chronic and can evolve into a GBF. Surgical approach is an effective treatment. Endobronchial valve is a novel alternative.

Management of blunt hepatic trauma

For the last 20 years, nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt hepatic trauma (BHT) has been the initial policy whenever this is possible (80% of cases), i.e., in all cases where the hemodynamic status does not demand emergency laparotomy. NOM relies upon the coexistence of three highly effective treatment modalities: radiology with contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CT) and hepatic arterial embolization, intensive care surveillance, and finally delayed surgery (DS). DS is not a failure of NOM management but rather an integral part of the surgical strategy. When imposed by hemodynamic instability, the immediate surgical option has seen its effectiveness transformed by development of the concept of abbreviated (damage control) laparotomy and wide application of the method of perihepatic packing (PHP). The effectiveness of these two conservative and cautious strategies for initial management is evidenced by current experience, but the management of secondary events that may arise with the most severe grades of injury must be both rapid and effective.

Damage Control Surgery for Non-traumatic Abdominal Emergencies

BackgroundDamage control surgery (DCS) was a major paradigm change in the management of critically ill trauma patients and has gradually expanded in the general surgery arena, but data in this setting are still scarce. The study aim was to evaluate outcomes of DCS in patients with general surgery emergencies.MethodsBetween 2005 and 2015, 164 patients (104 men, age 66) underwent DCS for non-traumatic abdominal emergencies. The decision to perform DCS was triggered by the presence of at least one trauma DCS criterion: hypotension (<70xa0mmHg), hypothermia (<35xa0°C), acidosis (pHxa0<xa07.25), coagulopathy (INRxa0≥xa01.7) and massive (>5xa0RBC) transfusion. Statistical tests were performed to identify risk factors for operative mortality. Observed outcomes were compared to those predicted by commonly employed scores (APACHE II, POSSUM, P-POSSUM, SAPS II).ResultsDCS was performed for acute mesenteric ischemia (nxa0=xa068), peritonitis (nxa0=xa044), pancreatitis (nxa0=xa028), bleeding (nxa0=xa014) and other (nxa0=xa010). Abdominal compartment syndrome was associated in 52 patients (32%). Seventy-four (45%) patients died and 150 patients (91%) experienced complications. On multivariate analysis, age (pxa0=xa00.018) and INRxa0≥xa01.7 (pxa0=xa00.001) were independent predictors of mortality. Mortality was 24% (13/55), 48% (22/46) and 62% (39/63) in patients with one, two and ≥3 DCS criteria, respectively. Comparison of observed and score-predicted mortality suggested DCS use resulted in significant survival benefit of the whole cohort and of patients with pancreatitis and postoperative peritonitis.ConclusionsDCS can be lifesaving in critically ill patients with general surgery emergencies. Patients with peritonitis and acute pancreatitis are those who benefit most of the DCS approach.

Management of penetrating abdominal and thoraco-abdominal wounds: A retrospective study of 186 patients.

This is a single center retrospective review of abdominal or abdomino-thoracic penetrating wounds treated between 2004 and 2013 in the gastrointestinal and emergency unit of the university hospital of Grenoble, France. This study did not include patients who sustained blunt trauma or non-traumatic wounds, as well as patients with penetrating head and neck injury, limb injury, ano-perineal injury, or isolated thoracic injury above the fifth costal interspace. In addition, we also included cases that were reviewed in emergency department morbidity and mortality conferences during the same period. Mortality was 5.9% (11/186 patients). Mean age was 36 years (range: 13-87). Seventy-eight percent (145 patients) suffered stab wounds. Most patients were hemodynamically stable or stabilized upon arrival at the hospital (163 patients: 87.6%). Six resuscitative thoracotomies were performed, five for gunshot wounds, one for a stab wound. When abdominal exploration was necessary, laparotomy was chosen most often (78/186: 41.9%), while laparoscopy was performed in 46 cases (24.7%), with conversion to laparotomy in nine cases. Abdominal penetration was found in 103 cases (55.4%) and thoracic penetration in 44 patients (23.7%). Twenty-nine patients (15.6%) had both thoracic and abdominal penetration (with 16 diaphragmatic wounds). Suicide attempts were recorded in 43 patients (23.1%), 31 (72.1%) with peritoneal penetration. Two patients (1.1%) required operation for delayed peritonitis, one who had had a laparotomy qualified as negative, and another who had undergone surgical exploration of his wound under general anesthesia. In conclusion, management of clear-cut or suspected penetrating injury represents a medico-surgical challenge and requires effective management protocols.

Energy vessel sealing systems versus mechanical ligature of the inferior mesenteric artery in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy

PurposeWith the development of new devices, our ligation technique of the inferior mesenteric artery changed from mechanical ligature (ML) to energized vessel sealing systems (EVSS) ligature. The aim of this study was to determine if EVSS could be considered as safe and effective as the more convention ML of the inferior mesenteric vessels division during elective laparoscopic left colectomy.MethodsBetween 2001 and 2014, 200 consecutive patients (111 males) of mean age 54.1xa0years were operated laparoscopically for a symptomatic sigmoid diverticulitis. Vascular interruptions were performed using mechanical ligatures including double clipping, staples or surgical thread (100 patients) or, starting from 2006, with EVSS thereafter (100 patients). Section of the inferior mesenteric artery is performed systematically at its origin in our institution for teaching purposes. Technical results were prospectively collected perioperatively and postoperatively.ResultsThere was no mortality. Mean operating time was 253.7 and 200.7xa0min in the ML and EVSS groups, respectively (pu2009<u20090.001). Mean hospital stay was 10.4 and 8.1xa0days (pu2009<u20090.001). Thirty-day complications occurred in 31 versus 25xa0% of patients (pu2009=u20090.26). Leakage with peritonitis occurred in 3 patients in the ML group. Hemorrhagic events occurred in both groups (2 in ML group versus 1 in EVSS group). Limitations of the study are its retrospective design and the bias due to the comparison of two historical cohorts.ConclusionsEVSS for the inferior mesenteric artery are as safe and effective as ML in elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease with lower operative time and hospital stay.

Internal biliary stenting in liver transplantation

PurposeInternal biliary stenting (IBS) was reported to decrease biliary complications after liver transplantation (LT) but data in literature is scarce. The aim of the present study was to evaluate our experience with end-to-end choledoco-choledocostomy during liver transplantation with special focus on the influence of IBS on patient and biliary outcomes.MethodsBetween 2009 and 2013, 175 patients underwent deceased donor LT with end-to-end choledoco-choledocostomy and were included in the study. Supra-papillary silastic stent was inserted in 67 patients (38%) with small-size (<u20095xa0mm) bile ducts (recipient or donor). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was scheduled for IBS removal, 6xa0months after LT. Operative outcomes and survival of patients who received internal stenting (IBS group) were compared with those of patients who did not (no-IBS group). Risk factors for biliary anastomotic complications were identified.ResultsTen patients died (6%) and 104 (59%) experienced postoperative complications. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 77 and 74%, respectively. Biliary complications were recorded in 61 patients (35%) and were significantly decreased by IBS insertion (pu2009=u20090.0003). Anastomotic fistulas occurred in 23 patients (13%) and stenoses in 44 patients (25%). On multivariate analysis, high preoperative MELD scores (pu2009=u20090.02) and hepatic artery thrombosis (pu2009<u20090.0001) were predictors of fistula; absence of IBS was associated with both fistula (pu2009=u20090.014) and stricture (pu2009=u20090.003) formation.ConclusionsIBS insertion during LT decreases anastomotic complication.

Strategic proposal for a national trauma system in France

In this road map for trauma in France, we focus on the main challenges for system implementation, surgical and radiology training and upon innovative training techniques. Regarding system organisation: procedures for triage, designation and certification of trauma centres are mandatory to implement trauma networks on a national scale. Data collection with registries must be created, with a core dataset defined and applied through all registries. Regarding surgical and radiology training, diagnostic-imaging processes should be standardised and the role of the interventional radiologist within the trauma team and the trauma network should be clearly defined. Education in surgery for trauma is crucial and recent changes in medical training in France will promote trauma surgery as a specific sub-specialty. Innovative training techniques should be implemented and be based on common objectives, scenarios and evaluation, so as to improve individual and team performances. The group formulated 14 proposals that should help to structure and improve major trauma management in France over the next 10 years.