Stefania Cimbanassi

Resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock: Experimental model comparing normal saline, dextran, and hypertonic saline solutions

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of normal saline, dextran, hypertonic, and hypertonic-hyperoncotic solutions in hemorrhagic shock. DesignLaboratory investigation. SettingUniversity hospital, Emergency Surgery and Intensive Care staff. SubjectsThirty-two large white female pigs. InterventionsRoutine care included: anesthesia and sedation (ketamine 10 mg/kg, droperidol 0.25 mg/kg, diazepam 0.7 mg/kg, fentanyl 0.006 mg/kg, 2% enflurane, 20% nitrous oxide, pancuronium bromide 0.13 mg/kg); volume-controlled ventilation (Paco2 35–40 torr; 4.7–5.4 kPa); cannulation of right carotid artery and pulmonary artery. Three flow probes (subdiaphragmatic aorta, superior mesenteric artery, right renal artery) and regional venous catheters (superior mesenteric vein, right renal vein) were positioned. Animals were bled to 45 mm Hg for 1 hr and resuscitated with four different fluids and blood to normal aortic blood flow and hemoglobin. Measurements and Main ResultsMean arterial pressure and blood flow through abdominal aorta (&OV0312;aor), mesenteric artery (&OV0312;mes), and renal artery (&OV0312;ren) were continuously monitored. Cardiac output, systemic and regional oxygen delivery (&U1E0A;o2, &U1E0A;o2mes, &U1E0A;o2ren), and consumption (&OV0312;o2, &OV0312;o2mes, &OV0312;o2ren) were recorded every 30 mins. Baseline &OV0312;aor was restored with different amounts of fluids in the four groups: normal saline (91.35 ± 22.18 mL/kg); dextran (16.24 ± 4.42 mL/kg); hypertonic (13.70 ± 1.44 mL/kg); and hypertonic-hyperoncotic (9.11 ± 1.20 mL/kg). The amount of sodium load was less using dextran and hypertonic-hyperoncotic and sodium levels were only transiently increased after hypertonic infusion. Mean arterial pressure and cardiac output were normalized in all groups. Animals resuscitated with normal saline and dextran showed increased pulmonary artery pressures. &U1E0A;o2 was significantly higher after hypertonic-hyperoncotic infusion, because of reduced hemodilution. Hypertonic and hypertonic-hyperoncotic normalized &OV0312;mes, &U1E0A;o2mes, &OV0312;o2mes, &OV0312;ren, and &U1E0A;o2ren, whereas normal saline and dextran did not achieve this result. At the end of the experiment, hypertonic-hyperoncotic maintained mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, and &U1E0A;o2 until the end of observation in contrast to normal saline, dextran, and hypertonic. ConclusionsResuscitation with a small volume of hypertonic-hyperoncotic solution allows systemic and splanchnic hemodynamic and oxygen transport recovery, without an increase in pulmonary artery pressure. It only transiently increased sodium concentration.

Trauma deaths in an Italian urban area: an audit of pre-hospital and in-hospital trauma care

In Italy, a comprehensive regional study of trauma deaths has never been performed. We examined the organization and delivery of trauma care in the city area of Milan, using panel review of trauma deaths. Two panels evaluated the appropriateness of care of all trauma victims occurred during 1 year, applying predefined criteria and judging deaths as not preventable (NP), possible preventable (PP), and definitely preventable (DP). Two hundred and fifty-five deaths were reviewed. Blunt trauma were 78.04% and motor vehicle crashes accounted for over 50%. Most victims (73.72%) died during pre-hospital settings and 91.1% died within the first 6h, principally because of central nervous system injuries in blunt and hemorrhage in penetrating trauma. Panels judged 57% of deaths NP, 32% PP, 11% DP (inter-panel K-test 0.88). Preventable deaths were higher after in-hospital admission. Main failures of treatment were lack in airway control or intravenous infusions in pre-hospital and mismanagement with missed injuries in emergency department. The high rate of avoidable deaths in Milan supports the need of trained pre-hospital personnel and of well equipped referring hospitals for trauma.

Organized trauma care: does volume matter and do trauma centers save lives?

Purpose of reviewTrauma is the leading cause of death during the first four decades of life. Since the 1970s, organized systems for trauma care, including a prehospital emergency medical system and a network of hospitals designated as trauma centers, have been developed. The model of the trauma system and its efficacy have been reviewed. Recent findingsFundamental to the trauma system is its recognition in the field and the transportation to a trauma center of patients with more serious injuries. Each trauma center has to treat at least 240 severe trauma patients per year to increase experience. It is cost-effective that less severely injured patients be treated in nontrauma centers acute care facilities, according to the inclusive system model. The effectiveness of trauma systems has been investigated by comparing postsystem with presystem trauma care with three methods: panel evaluation of preventable death rates, comparison of observed survival with expected probability of survival derived from large trauma registries, and evaluation of population-based general databases. These studies have demonstrated a decrease in preventable death rate and an increase in survival after system implementation. All these studies have been classified as providing weak class III evidence. However, with a large sample size and when properly designed, they generate important information regarding appropriateness of care delivered. SummaryConcentration of severely injured patients in trauma centers is associated with better outcomes. Population-based investigations provide the strongest evidence regarding effects of the trauma system on patient outcomes, other than survival outcome measures because long-term functional status may be more appropriate.

Preventable trauma deaths: from panel review to population based-studies.

Preventable trauma deaths are defined as deaths which could be avoided if optimal care has been delivered. Studies on preventable trauma deaths have been accomplished initially with panel reviews of pre-hospital and hospital charts. However, several investigators questioned the reliability and validity of this method because of low reproducibility of implicit judgments when they are made by different experts. Nevertheless, number of studies were published all around the world and ultimately gained some credibility, particularly in regions where comparisons were made before and after trauma system implementation with a resultant fall in mortality. During the last decade of century the method of comparing observed survival with probability of survival calculated from large trauma registries has obtained popularity. Preventable trauma deaths were identified as deaths occurred notwithstanding a high calculated probability of survival. In recent years, preventable trauma deaths studies have been replaced by population-based studies, which use databases representative of overall population, therefore with high epidemiologic value. These databases contain readily available information which carry out the advantage of objectivity and large numbers. Nowadays, population-based researches provide the strongest evidence regarding the effectiveness of trauma systems and trauma centers on patient outcomes.

The open abdomen, indications, management and definitive closure

The indications for Open Abdomen (OA) are generally all those situations in which is ongoing the development an intra-abdominal hypertension condition (IAH), in order to prevent the development of abdominal compartmental syndrome (ACS). In fact all those involved in care of a critically ill patient should in the first instance think how to prevent IAH and ACS. In case of ACS goal directed therapy to achieve early opening and early closure is the key: paradigm of closure shifts to combination of therapies including negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic closure, in order to reduce complications and avoid incisional hernia.There have been huge studies and progress in survival of critically ill trauma and septic surgical patients: this in part has been through the great work of pioneers, scientific societies and their guidelines; however future studies and continued innovation are needed to better understand optimal treatment strategies and to define more clearly the indications, because OA by itself is still a morbid procedure.

International consensus conference on open abdomen in trauma.

BACKGROUND A part of damage-control laparotomy is to leave the fascial edges and the skin open to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome and allow further explorations. This condition, known as open abdomen (OA), although effective, is associated with severe complications. Our aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations to define indications for OA, techniques for temporary abdominal closure, management of enteric fistulas, and methods of definitive wall closure. METHODS The literature from 1990 to 2014 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses] protocol. Seventy-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendations (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] system, and an international consensus conference was held. RESULTS OA in trauma is indicated at the end of damage-control laparotomy, in the presence of visceral swelling, for a second look in vascular injuries or gross contamination, in the case of abdominal wall loss, and if medical treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome has failed (GoR B, LoE II). Negative-pressure wound therapy is the recommended temporary abdominal closure technique to drain peritoneal fluid, improve nursing, and prevent fascial retraction (GoR B, LoE I). Lack of OA closure within 8 days (GoR C, LoE II), bowel injuries, high-volume replacement, and use of polypropylene mesh over the bowel (GoR C, LoE I) are risk factors for frozen abdomen and fistula formation. Negative-pressure wound therapy allows to isolate the fistula and protect the surrounding tissues from spillage until granulation (GoR C, LoE II). Correction of fistula is performed after 6 months to 12 months. Definitive closure of OA has to be obtained early (GoR C, LoE I) with direct suture, traction devices, component separation with or without mesh. Biologic meshes are an option for wall reinforcement if bacterial contamination is present (GoR C, LoE II). CONCLUSION OA and negative-pressure techniques improve the care of trauma patients, but closure must be achieved early to avoid complications.

Isolated extrahepatic bile duct rupture: a rare consequence of blunt abdominal trauma. Case report and review of the literature

A 16-year-old girl suffered blunt abdominal trauma. Clinically, a severe motor impairment with paraesthesia of the legs was found. Posterior osteosynthesis in T10-L1 with laminectomy in T10-T12 and posterolateral arthrodesis in T11-T12 was performed because of a dorsal traumatic vertebral fracture. On hospital day 7, because of an acute abdomen, surgical laparoscopic exploration showed sterile bloody fluid without any evident hemorrhagic injury. On hospital day 11, the patient was reoperated on by the laparoscopic approach for increasing abdominal pain and fever: a peritoneal biliary fluid was aspirated. After conversion to open surgery, cholecystectomy was performed. Intraoperative cholangiography was considered as normal. On arrival at our institution 13 days after injury, the patient was operated on for a biliary peritonitis. Intraoperatively, a trans-cystic cholangiography showed a biliary leakage of the common bile duct; a T-tube was placed into the common bile duct; a subhepatic drainage was placed too. On postoperative day 30, a T-tube cholangiography showed a normal biliary tree, without any leakage, and the T-tube was subsequently removed. The patient had a complete recovery.

Splenic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines for adult and pediatric patients

Spleen injuries are among the most frequent trauma-related injuries. At present, they are classified according to the anatomy of the injury. The optimal treatment strategy, however, should keep into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic derangement, and the associated injuries. The management of splenic trauma patients aims to restore the homeostasis and the normal physiopathology especially considering the modern tools for bleeding management. Thus, the management of splenic trauma should be ultimately multidisciplinary and based on the physiology of the patient, the anatomy of the injury, and the associated lesions. Lastly, as the management of adults and children must be different, children should always be treated in dedicated pediatric trauma centers. In fact, the vast majority of pediatric patients with blunt splenic trauma can be managed non-operatively. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of splenic trauma and the management guidelines.

The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines

Damage control resuscitation may lead to postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension or abdominal compartment syndrome. These conditions may result in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle leading to severe physiologic derangements and multiorgan failure unless interrupted by abdominal (surgical or other) decompression. Further, in some clinical situations, the abdomen cannot be closed due to the visceral edema, the inability to control the compelling source of infection or the necessity to re-explore (as a “planned second-look” laparotomy) or complete previously initiated damage control procedures or in cases of abdominal wall disruption. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients has been proposed to be effective in preventing or treating deranged physiology in patients with severe injuries or critical illness when no other perceived options exist. Its use, however, remains controversial as it is resource consuming and represents a non-anatomic situation with the potential for severe adverse effects. Its use, therefore, should only be considered in patients who would most benefit from it. Abdominal fascia-to-fascia closure should be done as soon as the patient can physiologically tolerate it. All precautions to minimize complications should be implemented.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

AbstractᅟObstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).MethodsThe literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.ResultsCT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann’s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.ConclusionsThe current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.