Morgan Schellenberg

Critical Decisions in the Management of Thoracic Trauma

Traumatic injuries to the thorax are common after both blunt and penetrating trauma. Emergency medicine physicians must be able to manage the initial resuscitation and diagnostic workup of these patients. This involves familiarity with a range of radiologic investigations and invasive bedside procedures, including resuscitative thoracotomy. This knowledge is critical to allow for rapid decision making when life-threatening injuries are encountered. This article explores the initial resuscitation and assessment of patients after thoracic trauma, discusses available imaging modalities, reviews frequently performed procedures, and provides an overview of the indications for operative intervention, while emphasizing the critical decision making throughout.

Falls in the Bathroom: A Mechanism of Injury for All Ages

BACKGROUNDnWhen ground-level falls occur in the bathroom, there is particular potential for morbidity and mortality given the high density of hard surfaces. Risk factors are not clearly defined by the existing literature. The objective of this study was to define the epidemiology, injury patterns, and outcomes after falls in the bathroom.nnnMATERIALS AND METHODSnAll patients presenting to LAC+USC Medical Center (01/2008-05/2015) after a fall in the bathroom (ICD-9 code E884.6) were included. Demographics, injury data, investigations, procedures, and outcomes were collected.nnnRESULTSnFifty-seven patients were included, with mean age 45 y (range 0-92). All ages were affected, with ages 41-60 y at highest risk. Common comorbidities included cardiovascular disease (nxa0=xa023, 40%), neuromuscular disorders (nxa0=xa013, 23%), and diabetes (nxa0=xa09, 16%). Ten patients (18%) were intoxicated. Home medications included antihypertensives (nxa0=xa018, 32%), antipsychotics (nxa0=xa09, 16%), and anticoagulants (nxa0=xa08, 14%). Common investigations included X-rays (nxa0=xa041, 72%) and CT scans of the head (nxa0=xa020, 35%). The most frequent injuries were contusion/laceration (nxa0=xa045, 79%), fracture (nxa0=xa012, 21%), and traumatic brain injury (nxa0=xa07, 12%). Most patients did not require hospital admission (nxa0=xa046, 81%), although 4 (7%) needed intensive care unit care and operative intervention (ORIF [nxa0=xa02, 4%] or craniectomy [nxa0=xa02, 4%]). Mortality was low (nxa0=xa01, 2%). Most patients were discharged home (nxa0=xa040, 70%).nnnCONCLUSIONSnAll ages, especially 41-60 y, are susceptible to falls in the bathroom. Despite the potential for serious injury, most do not require hospital admission. Risk factors include drugs/alcohol, cardiovascular disease, neuromuscular disorders, and diabetes. Efforts to minimize fall risk should be directed toward these individuals.

Detection of traumatic pancreatic duct disruption in the modern era

BACKGROUNDnPancreatic trauma management hinges upon the presence or absence of pancreatic duct injury, but the optimal method of assessment is unclear. This study endeavored to evaluate the methods of pancreatic duct assessment in modern practice.nnnMETHODSnPatients presenting to LACxa0+xa0USC Medical Center (01/2008-06/2015) with a pancreatic injury were identified (ICD-9 codes). Demographics, clinical data, technique of duct evaluation, and outcomes were analyzed.nnnRESULTSn71 patients with pancreatic injury were identified. 21 patients (30%) underwent CT scan (sensitivity 76%). Sixteen (76%) then underwent laparotomy while 5 (24%) were managed successfully nonoperatively. Most (nu202f=u202f50, 70%) underwent immediate laparotomy. Overall, 66 patients (93%) were managed operatively. The majority were assessed intraoperatively for ductal injury with visual inspection alone (nu202f=u202f62, 94%). Four (6%) underwent intraoperative pancreatography via duodenotomy/cholecystotomy, which were all inconclusive.nnnCONCLUSIONnIn the evaluation of pancreatic duct injury, intraoperative pancreatography is frequently inconclusive and should have a limited role. Clinical suspicion for ductal injury based on intraoperative visual inspection alone should guide the management of pancreatic injuries.

Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level i trauma centers: The results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study

INTRODUCTION Rectal injuries have been historically treated with a combination of modalities including direct repair, resection, proximal diversion, presacral drainage, and distal rectal washout. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal rectal injuries may be selectively managed without diversion and the addition of distal rectal washout and presacral drainage in the management of extraperitoneal injuries are not beneficial. METHODS This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 of all patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury and were admitted to one of the 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, location and grade of injury, and management of rectal injury were collected. The primary outcome was abdominal complications (abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and fascial dehiscence). RESULTS After exclusions, there were 785 patients in the cohort. Rectal injuries were intraperitoneal in 32%, extraperitoneal in 58%, both in 9%, and not documented in 1%. Rectal injury severity included the following grades I, 28%; II, 41%; III, 13%; IV, 12%; and V, 5%. Patients with intraperitoneal injury managed with a proximal diversion developed more abdominal complications (22% vs 10%, p = 0.003). Among patients with extraperitoneal injuries, there were more abdominal complications in patients who received proximal diversion (p = 0.0002), presacral drain (p = 0.004), or distal rectal washout (p = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, distal rectal washout [3.4 (1.4–8.5), p = 0.008] and presacral drain [2.6 (1.1–6.1), p = 0.02] were independent risk factors to develop abdominal complications. CONCLUSION Most patients with intraperitoneal injuries undergo direct repair or resection as well as diversion, although diversion is not associated with improved outcomes. While 20% of patients with extraperitoneal injuries still receive a presacral drain and/or distal rectal washout, these additional maneuvers are independently associated with a three-fold increase in abdominal complications and should not be included in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level III.

Defining the gastroesophageal junction in trauma: Epidemiology and management of a challenging injury

BACKGROUND Injuries to the gastroesophageal (GE) junction are infrequently encountered because of the high mortality of associated injuries. Consequently, there is a paucity of literature on the patient demographics and treatment options. The aim of this study was to examine the epidemiology, surgical management, and outcomes of these rare injuries. METHODS Patients presenting to LAC + USC Medical Center (January 2008 to August 2016) with traumatic esophageal or gastric injury (DRG International Classification of Diseases—9th Rev.—Clinical Modification and 10th Rev. codes) were extracted from the trauma registry. Patient charts were reviewed, and all patients who sustained an injury to the GE junction were enrolled. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS Of the 238 patients who sustained an injury to the esophagus or stomach during the study period, 28 (12%) were found to have a GE junction injury. Mean age was 26 years (range, 14–57 years), 89% male. Mechanism of injury was penetrating in 96% (n = 27), the majority of which were gunshot wounds (n = 22, 81%). Most patients (n = 18, 64%) were taken directly to the operating room. Ten (36%) underwent computed tomography scan before going to the operating room, all demonstrating a GE junction injury. All patients underwent repair via laparotomy. One (4%) also required thoracotomy to facilitate delayed reconstruction. GE junction injuries were typically managed with primary repair (n = 22, 79%). Associated injuries were frequent (n = 26, 93%), and injury severity was high (mean Injury Severity Score, 25 [9–75]). Mortality was 25% (n = 7), and all patients required intensive care unit admission. Most did not require total parenteral nutrition (n = 25, 89%) or a surgically placed feeding tube (n = 26, 93%). Of the 13 patients who presented for clinical follow-up, all but one (n = 12, 92%) were eating independently by the first clinic visit. CONCLUSION GE junction injuries are uncommon and occur almost exclusively after penetrating trauma. Patients are severely injured with a high mortality rate and frequently have associated intracavitary injuries. Most can be fixed through the abdomen alone and do not require thoracotomy for repair. Despite the severity of injuries, the majority of survivors are eating independently by the first clinic visit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiological, level V.

Injuries sustained during contact with Law Enforcement: An analysis from Us Trauma Centers

BACKGROUND Injuries sustained by civilians from interaction with police are a polarizing contemporary sociopolitical issue. Few comprehensive studies have been published using national hospital-based data. The aim of this study was to examine the epidemiology of these injuries to better understand this mechanism of injury. METHODS Patients entered into the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) (January 2007 to December 2012) with E-codes E970.0 to E976.0 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification), identifying injuries associated with law enforcement in the course of legal action, were enrolled. Patients demographics, injury characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Patients injured by other civilians (E960.0–E968.0) were used for comparison. RESULTS Of 4,146,428 patients in the NTDB, 7,203 (0.17%) were injured during interaction with police. The numbers of patients in consecutive study years were 858, 1,103, 1,148, 1,274, 1,316, and 1,504. The incidence of these injuries was stable over time (0.17–0.18%) (p = 0.129). Patients had a median age of 31 years (range, 0–108), and 94.3% were male. Median injury severity score was 9 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–17). The most common mechanism of injury was gunshot wound (44%). Patients were white, 43%; black, 30%; Hispanic, 17%; Asian, 1%; and Other, 9%. As a proportion of the total race-specific NTDB trauma population, there was an average of 1.13 white patients, 2.71 Hispanic patients, and 3.83 black patients per 1,000. Mechanism, injury severity score, and outcomes did not vary by race. Compared to patients injured by civilians, patients injured by police are more likely to be white (43% vs 25%, p < 0.001) and injured by gunshot wounds (44% vs 32%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Based on data from trauma centers across the United States, the rate of injuries sustained during interactions with police has been stable over time. Gunshot wounds are the most common mechanism of injury. Proportionally, black patients are the most frequently injured race. When compared to patients injured by civilians, however, patients injured by police are more likely to be white. This study provides a step toward a better understanding of police-associated injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Pneumonia in Trauma Patients

Purpose of ReviewThis article reviews the new definitions of pneumonia, discusses risk factors for pneumonia among trauma patients, presents the latest evidence for prevention strategies, discusses the best ways to make the diagnosis, and reviews the microbiology and treatment for trauma patients with pneumonia.Recent FindingsPneumonia can be prevented by decreasing the duration of mechanical ventilation using daily paired spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, but not with early tracheostomy placement. Other useful prevention strategies include semirecumbent positioning and oral care. Mini-BAL is a sensitive and specific means of securing the diagnosis of pneumonia that does not require a physician to be present and is therefore especially useful in busy trauma centers.SummaryPneumonia is a frequent complication among trauma patients. Risk factors are largely unmodifiable. However, trauma centers can institute routine daily paired spontaneous awakening and breathing trials to decrease the duration of ventilation and incidence of pneumonia. Future research is needed to further characterize the microbiology of pneumonia among trauma patients.

The diagnostic yield of commonly used investigations in pelvic gunshot wounds.

BACKGROUND Patients who sustain pelvic gunshot wounds (GSWs) are at significant risk for injury owing to the density of pelvic structures. Currently, the optimal workup for pelvic GSWs is unclear. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic yield of tests commonly used in the investigation of pelvic GSWs and to develop a diagnostic algorithm. METHODS All patients 15 years or older presenting to the Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center (January 2008 to February 2015) who sustained one or more pelvic GSWs were retrospectively identified. Patients demographics, clinical assessment, investigations, procedures, and outcomes were abstracted. The diagnostic yield of computed tomographic (CT) scan, cystogram, gross inspection of the urine, urinalysis, endoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE) in the detection of clinically significant injuries to the pelvis were calculated. RESULTS Three hundred seventy patients were included. Patients with peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, an unevaluable abdomen, or evisceration were taken to the operating room for immediate laparotomy (n = 138 [37.3%]). All others (n = 232 [62.7%]) underwent CT scan and further investigations as indicated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the investigations were CT scan: 1.00, 0.98, 0.74, and 1.00; cystogram: 1.00 for all parameters; gross inspection of the urine: 1.00 for all parameters; urinalysis: 1.00, 0.71, 0.17, and 1.00; endoscopy: 1.00, 0.82, 0.75, and 1.00; and DRE: 0.77, 0.99, 0.77, and 0.99. CONCLUSION In the workup of pelvic GSWs, patients with hemodynamic instability, peritonitis, evisceration, or an unevaluable abdomen should undergo immediate laparotomy, while all others should undergo CT scan. Computed tomography–positive patients should be managed for their injuries. If the CT is negative, the likelihood of a clinically significant injury is very low. If the CT is equivocal for rectal or bladder injury, endoscopy or cystogram should be used to guide definitive management. There is no role for routine urinalysis or DRE. Further prospective validation of these findings is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.