John J. Como

Trauma center variation in splenic artery embolization and spleen salvage: A multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate if variation in management of blunt splenic injury (BSI) among Level I trauma centers is associated with different outcomes related to the use of splenic artery embolization (SAE). METHODS All adult patients admitted for BSI from 2008 to 2010 at 4 Level I trauma centers were reviewed. Use of SAE was determined, and outcomes of spleen salvage and nonoperative management (NOM) failure were evaluated. A priori, a 10% SAE rate was used to group centers into high- or low-use groups. RESULTS There were 1,275 BSI patients. There were intercenter differences in age, injury severity, and grade of spleen injury (Spleen Injury Scale [SIS]). Mortality was similar by center; however, BSI treatment varied significantly by center. Overall, SAE use was highest at center A compared with B, C, and D (19%, 11%, 1%, and 4%, respectively; p < 0.01). High SAE use centers had significantly higher spleen salvage rates and fewer NOM failures. Differences in the use of SAE (25% vs. 2%, p < 0.01) and salvage rate (67% vs. 56%, p = 0.03) were most dramatic between high- and low-use SAE centers for Grade 3 and 4 injured spleens. In patients who received initial NOM, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SAE was an independent predictor of spleen salvage (odds ratio, 5; 95% confidence interval, 1.8–13.5; p < 0.01) as were lower age, lower SIS, and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Patients treated at high SAE use centers were more likely to leave the hospital with their spleen in situ (odds ratio, 3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7–6.3; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION Significant practice variation exists in the use of SAE in treating BSI at Level I trauma centers. Centers with higher rates of SAE use have higher spleen salvage and less NOM failure. SAE was shown to be an independent predictor of spleen salvage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level IV.

Life after 80 Hours: The Impact of Resident Work Hours Mandates on Trauma and Emergency Experience and Work Effort for Senior Residents and Faculty

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of work hours mandates on (1) senior resident patient exposure and operating experience in trauma and emergency surgery and (2) faculty work effort. METHODS We measured resident and faculty work on the trauma and emergency surgery services at our Level I trauma center during two comparable 6-month periods. Period 1 (July 1-December 31, 2002) had no call restrictions, separate trauma and emergency service resident call, and some overlap of faculty call responsibilities. Period 2 (July 1-December 31, 2003) had resident work hours compliance and complete integration of resident and faculty trauma and emergency call. Work hours were measured by surveys for faculty and residents. All data were collected prospectively. RESULTS Resident exposure to trauma patients was similar during both time periods. Emergency surgery admissions declined during period 2; however, intensive care unit admissions increased. The number of operations performed by senior residents did not change; however, there was a shift in the median number of emergency surgery cases to more senior residents. Faculty work hours increased slightly despite a decrease in faculty call. CONCLUSION Work hours compliance resulted in a 50% reduction in senior resident call and a 19% decrease in their work hours with no significant change in trauma/emergency patient care exposure or operative case load. Service call amalgamation reduced faculty call by 21% but did not result in a corresponding change in work hours or productivity.

Isolated cervical spine fractures in the elderly: a deadly injury.

BACKGROUND Traumatic injury in the elderly is an increasing problem and studies have shown that elderly patients (>/=65 years old) with cervical spine fractures and spinal cord injury (SCI) carry a mortality rate of 21% to 30%. However, little has been described with regard to outcomes for elderly patients with isolated cervical spine fractures (ICSF). HYPOTHESIS Outcomes for elderly patients with ICSF will be similar to elderly patients with cervical fractures and associated traumatic injuries (ATI) or SCI. METHODS A 9-year retrospective analysis was performed on all patients >/=65 years old admitted to a level I trauma center with any cervical spine fracture. Primary outcomes were defined as favorable (discharge to home or rehabilitation hospital) or unfavorable (death, discharge to a long-term acute care facility, or a skilled nursing facility). ICSF was defined as those fractures without ATI or SCI. Long-term mortality data were gathered using the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS A total of 177 patients with mean age of 78 +/- 1 and Injury Severity Score of 17 +/- 1 were evaluated. Fifty-six percent were men and falls were the most common mechanism (62%). An unfavorable outcome was seen in 56% of the study population with a mortality rate of 25%. ATIs were seen in 57% of the population and 22% had SCI. Patients with SCI had a significantly higher mortality compared with patients without SCI (38% vs. 22%, p = 0.032). However, there was no difference in unfavorable outcomes. Patients with ICSF had no differences in unfavorable outcomes compared with patients with SCI or ATI. Long-term survival analysis after discharge (mean = 2.8 years) demonstrated that patients with a favorable outcome had a significantly improved survival compared with patients with unfavorable outcomes (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION ICSFs were associated with an unfavorable outcome in the elderly population regardless of ATI or SCI. These unfavorable outcomes were also associated with long-term mortality. Strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in this devastating injury will be essential to improve outcomes and maximize resource utilization.

A novel prospective approach to evaluate trauma recidivism: The concept of the past trauma history

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and burden of trauma recidivism at a regional Level 1 trauma center by incorporating the concept of the past trauma history (PTHx) into the general trauma history. METHODS All trauma patients who met prehospital trauma criteria and activated the trauma team during a 13-month period were asked about their PTHx, that is, their history of injury in the previous 5 years. A recidivist presented more than once for separate severe injuries. Recurrent recidivists presented multiple times during the study period. RESULTS Of the 4,971 trauma activations during the study period, 1,246 (25.2%) were identified as recidivists. Recidivists were 75% male, 62% white, 36% unemployed, 26% uninsured, and 90% unmarried. The recidivism rate among admitted patients was 23.4% compared with 29.3% in those discharged from the emergency department. The highest recidivism rates were noted in patients who reported alcohol or illegal drug use on the day of injury and in victims of interpersonal violence (IPV), defined as those who sustained gunshot wounds, stab wounds, or assaults, Those involved in IPV were more likely to have been involved in IPV at the previous trauma than those with other trauma mechanisms. Key risk factors for recidivism among all patients were male sex and single marital status. Seventy-three patients (1.5%) were recurrent recidivists, representing 157 unique encounters. CONCLUSION This is the highest trauma recidivism rate reported on a large population of all consecutive trauma activations at a regional Level 1 trauma center. These data illustrate the tremendous burden of recidivism in the modern era, more than previously recognized. Efforts specifically targeting those involved in IPV may reduce recidivism rates. Incorporating the concept of the PTHx into the general history of the trauma patient is feasible and provides valuable information to the provider. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic study, level II.

Management of penetrating extraperitoneal rectal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline

BACKGROUND The management of penetrating rectal trauma invokes a complex decision tree that advocates the principles of proximal diversion (diversion) of the fecal stream, irrigation of stool from the distal rectum, and presacral drainage based on data from World War II and the Vietnam War. This guideline seeks to define the initial operative management principles for nondestructive extraperitoneal rectal injuries. METHODS A systematic review of the MEDLINE database using PubMed was performed. The search retrieved English language articles regarding penetrating rectal trauma from January 1900 to July 2014. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. Topics of investigation included the management principles of diversion, irrigation of stool from the distal rectum, and presacral drainage using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS A total of 306 articles were screened leading to a full-text review of 56 articles. Eighteen articles were used to formulate the recommendations of this guideline. CONCLUSION This guideline consists of three conditional evidence-based recommendations. First, we conditionally recommend proximal diversion for management of these injuries. Second, we conditionally recommend the avoidance of routine presacral drains and distal rectal washout in the management of these injuries.

Teamwork in Trauma: System Adjustment to a Protocol for the Management of Multiply Injured Patients.

Objectives: We developed a protocol to determine the timing of definitive fracture care based on the adequacy of resuscitation. Inception of this project required a multidisciplinary group, including physicians from anesthesiology, general trauma and critical care, neurosurgery, orthopaedic spine, and orthopaedic trauma. The purposes of this study were to review our initial experience with adherence to protocol recommendations and to assess barriers to implementation. Design: Prospective. Setting: Level 1 trauma center. Intervention: Definitive fixation of pelvis, acetabulum, spine, and femur fractures within 36 hours of injury, based on laboratory parameters for acidosis. Main Outcome Measurements: Three hundred five consecutive skeletally mature patients with Injury Severity Score ≥16 (mean, 26.4) and 346 fractures of the proximal or diaphyseal femur (n = 152), pelvic ring (n = 56), acetabulum (n = 44), and/or spine (n = 94) were treated surgically. Adherence to the protocol was defined as definitive fixation within 36 hours of injury in resuscitated patients. All patients were adequately resuscitated within that time. Patient demographic and injury characteristics, date and time of presentation, and reasons for delay were recorded. Results: Two hundred fifty-one patients (82%) with 287 fractures were treated according to the protocol, whereas 54 patients (18%) with 59 fractures were definitively stabilized on a delayed basis (mean, 90 hours). Delay was not related to patient age, Injury Severity Score, day of week, or time of presentation. Before implementation of this protocol, 76% were treated on a delayed basis, demonstrating improvement for each fracture type: spine (79% of previous patients with delay), pelvis (57%), acetabulum (72%), and femur (22%); all P < 0.0001 for more frequently delayed surgery before the protocol. Surgeon choice to delay the procedure accounted for 67% of reasons for delay. Other reasons included intensivist choice (13%), operating room availability (7.4%), patient choice (3.7%), severe head injury (5.6%), or cardiac issues (3.7%). Our trauma center and surgeons became more accustomed to the protocol and had fewer delays over time; 10% were delayed 2 years after implementation. Conclusions: Management of trauma patients with injury to multiple systems requires teamwork among providers from related specialties and hospital support, in terms of operating room access, with appropriate ancillary personnel and equipment. Our system adjusted quickly to the protocol. Surgeon preference was the most common reason for delayed fixation, but within 24 months, only 10% of fractures were treated on a delayed basis, as long as patients were resuscitated. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Recognizing Cardiac Syncope in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Trauma

BACKGROUND Cardiac syncope is associated with poor outcomes and may result in traumatic injuries. In patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with trauma, recognizing the cause of syncope is particularly challenging. Also, clinical markers to identify cardiac syncope are not well established. STUDY OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate clinical markers that could identify cardiac syncope in patients with traumatic falls derived from a large urban trauma database. METHODS All patients presenting to the ED during a 10-year study period with a traumatic fall were identified retrospectively. The subset of patients with syncope was ascertained by chart review and defined as cardiac syncope (e.g., presence of dysrhythmia, valvular abnormality), non-cardiac syncope (e.g., vasovagal, neurological), or syncope of unknown cause. RESULTS Of the 5420 patients with traumatic falls, 180 (3.3%) patients with syncope were identified. Among the 180 patients with syncope, the cause was identified as cardiac in 24 (13%), noncardiac in 58 (32%), and unknown in 98 (54%). Three independent predictors (i.e., risk factors) of cardiac syncope were identified: age >65 years, presence of coronary artery disease, and pathological Q waves. Presence of at least one risk factor accurately predicted cardiac syncope in this population, with a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 43%, and a negative predictive value of 100% (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.80 ± 0.04). CONCLUSION In patients with traumatic falls and syncope, simple clinical and electrocardiographical variables may identify patients with cardiac causes of syncope. Proper identification of cardiac syncope in this population can potentially prevent recurrence of life-threatening traumatic injury.

Upcoming rules and benchmarks concerning the monitoring of and the payment for surgical infections.

There has been a good deal of dialogue about pay for performance and linking outcomes with reimbursement, especially given the recent national health care legislation. Many such concerns are caused by upcoming changes that have been outlined in the Affordable Care Act. This article discusses these upcoming changes and reviews some of the literature that supports them, specifically those related to surgical infections. Likewise, the lack of support for some of these changes in the academic literature is discussed. Finally, some of the proposed key benchmarks and the methodologies behind the design of those benchmarks are discussed.

Trauma epidemiology, mechanisms of injury, and prehospital care

Trauma epidemiology Trauma is defined as physical damage to the body as a result of mechanical, chemical, thermal, electrical, or other energy that exceeds the tolerance of the body. Although trauma is often thought of as a series of unavoidable accidents, in reality it is a disease with known risk factors. Like other diseases such as cancer and heart disease, trauma risk factors are modifiable and injuries can be avoided before their occurrence. There are three phases of injury: 1. Pre-injury 2. Injury 3. Post-injury

Variation in treatment of low energy gunshot injuries – A survey of OTA members

The purpose of this study was to determine current practice patterns in the treatment of low energy gunshot wounds involving bones and joints. One hundred seventy-three Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) members completed a web-based survey. The survey included practices for antibiotic therapy and operative treatment for different types of low-energy gunshot injuries. Six different scenarios of soft tissue injury, intra-articular injury, and fractures were described. Several permutations of antibiotic therapy and operative or non-operative management options were given as choices on the survey. Survey responses had a high degree of heterogeneity with only two treatment options receiving more than 50% agreement among responders: 54% agreed on joint exploration with perioperative antibiotics for gunshot wounds (GSWs) traversing a joint and 55% agreed on treating operative tibial shaft fractures from GSWs with fixation, along with debridement and irrigation of the GSW tract, and perioperative antibiotics. The majority of participants (69%) were either not aware of or not sure of an established protocol for treatment of GSW to bones and joints at their institution. Moreover, there is still wide variation in treatments among 31% of the participants who reported a protocol in place at their institutions. We conclude there is wide variation among orthopaedic surgeons in the antimicrobial prophylaxis and treatment of GSWs. Opportunity exists to develop standardized practices to minimize related infections, other complications, and costs.