Thomas Peponis

Cervical spine MRI in patients with negative CT: A prospective, multicenter study of the Research Consortium of New England Centers for Trauma (ReCONECT).

BACKGROUND Although cervical spine CT (CSCT) accurately detects bony injuries, it may not identify all soft tissue injuries. Although some clinicians rely exclusively on a negative CT to remove spine precautions in unevaluable patients or patients with cervicalgia, others use MRI for that purpose. The objective of this study was to determine the rates of abnormal MRI after a negative CSCT. METHODS Blunt trauma patients who either were unevaluable or had persistent midline cervicalgia and underwent an MRI of the C-spine after a negative CSCT were enrolled prospectively in eight Level I and II New England trauma centers. Demographics, injury patterns, CT and MRI results, and any changes in cervical spine management as a result of MRI imaging were recorded. RESULTS A total of 767 patients had MRI because of cervicalgia (43.0%), inability to evaluate (44.1%), or both (9.4%). MRI was abnormal in 23.6% of all patients, including ligamentous injury (16.6%), soft tissue swelling (4.3%), vertebral disc injury (1.4%), and dural hematomas (1.3%). Rates of abnormal neurological signs or symptoms were not different among patients with normal versus abnormal MRI. (15.2 vs. 18.8%, p = 0.25). The c-collar was removed in 88.1% of patients with normal MRI and 13.3% of patients with an abnormal MRI. No patient required halo placement, but 11 patients underwent cervical spine surgery after the MRI results. Six of the eleven had neurological signs or symptoms. CONCLUSIONS In a select population of patients, MRI identified additional injuries in 23.6% of patients despite a normal CSCT. It is uncertain if this is a true limitation of CT technology or represents subtle injuries missed in the interpretation of the scan. The clinical significance of these abnormal MRI findings cannot be determined from this study group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level IV.

Does the emergency surgery score accurately predict outcomes in emergent laparotomies

Background. The emergency surgery score is a mortality‐risk calculator for emergency general operation patients. We sought to examine whether the emergency surgery score predicts 30‐day morbidity and mortality in a high‐risk group of patients undergoing emergent laparotomy. Methods. Using the 2011–2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we identified all patients who underwent emergent laparotomy using (1) the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definition of “emergent,” and (2) all Current Procedural Terminology codes denoting a laparotomy, excluding aortic aneurysm rupture. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to measure the correlation (c‐statistic) between the emergency surgery score and (1) 30‐day mortality, and (2) 30‐day morbidity after emergent laparotomy. As sensitivity analyses, the correlation between the emergency surgery score and 30‐day mortality was also evaluated in prespecified subgroups based on Current Procedural Terminology codes. Results. A total of 26,410 emergent laparotomy patients were included. Thirty‐day mortality and morbidity were 10.2% and 43.8%, respectively. The emergency surgery score correlated well with mortality (c‐statistic = 0.84); scores of 1, 11, and 22 correlated with mortalities of 0.4%, 39%, and 100%, respectively. Similarly, the emergency surgery score correlated well with morbidity (c‐statistic = 0.74); scores of 0, 7, and 11 correlated with complication rates of 13%, 58%, and 79%, respectively. The morbidity rates plateaued for scores higher than 11. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the emergency surgery score effectively predicts mortality in patients undergoing emergent (1) splenic, (2) gastroduodenal, (3) intestinal, (4) hepatobiliary, or (5) incarcerated ventral hernia operation. Conclusion. The emergency surgery score accurately predicts outcomes in all types of emergent laparotomy patients and may prove valuable as a bedside decision‐making tool for patient and family counseling, as well as for adequate risk‐adjustment in emergent laparotomy quality benchmarking efforts.

The Role of Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections

BackgroundThe exact role of IV contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) has not yet been established. We aimed to explore the role of CT in patients with clinical suspicion of NSTI and assess its sensitivity and specificity for NSTI.MethodsThe medical records of patients admitted between 2009 and 2016, who received IV contrast-enhanced CT to rule out NSTI, were reviewed. CT was considered positive in case of: (a) gas in soft tissues, (b) multiple fluid collections, (c) absence or heterogeneity of tissue enhancement by the IV contrast, and (d) significant inflammatory changes under the fascia. NSTI was confirmed only by the presence of necrotic tissue during surgical exploration. NSTI was considered absent if surgical exploration failed to identify necrosis, or if the patient was successfully treated non-operatively.ResultsOf the 184 patients, 17 had a positive CT and hence underwent surgical exploration with NSTI being confirmed in 13 of them (76%). Of the 167 patients that had a negative CT, 38 (23%) underwent surgical exploration due to the high clinical suspicion for NSTI and were all found to have non-necrotizing infections; the remaining 129 (77%) were managed non-operatively with successful resolution of symptoms. The sensitivity of CT in identifying NSTI was 100%, the specificity 98%, the positive predictive value 76%, and the negative predictive value 100%.ConclusionsA negative IV contrast-enhanced CT scan can reliably rule out the need for surgical intervention in patients with initial suspicion of NSTI.

Are surgeons reluctant to accurately report intraoperative adverse events? A prospective study of 1,989 patients

Background: The true incidence of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) remains unknown. Methods: All patients undergoing abdominal surgery at an academic institution between January and July 2016 were included in a prospective fashion. At the end of surgery, using a secure REDCap database, the surgeon was given the Institute of Medicine definition of intraoperative adverse events and asked whether an intraoperative adverse event had occurred. Blinded reviewers systematically examined all operative reports for intraoperative adverse events and their severity. The response rate and the intraoperative adverse event rate reported by surgeons were calculated. The latter was compared with the rate of intraoperative adverse events detected by operative report review. The severity of intraoperative adverse events was assessed based on a previously validated intraoperative adverse event classification system. Results: A total of 1,989 operations were included. The surgeons’ response rate was 71.9%, reporting intraoperative adverse events in 107 operations (7.5%). Of those intraoperative adverse events, 26 (24.3%) were not described in the operative report. Operative report review revealed intraoperative adverse events in 417 operations (21.0%). Most injuries were of lower severity (85.8% were either class I or II). The surgeons’ response rate was similar in operations with and without intraoperative adverse events (69.8% versus 72.5%, P=.28), but they underreported low severity intraoperative adverse events—only 13.2% of class I compared with 35.3%, 36.8%, and 55.6% of injury classes II, III, and IV respectively (P<.001). Conclusion: Surgeons are willing to report intraoperative adverse events, but systematically and significantly underreport them, especially if they are of lower severity. This is potentially related to the absence of a clear intraoperative adverse event definition or their personal interpretation of their clinical significance.

Preoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) is a Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infections after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND We sought to examine whether preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) increases the risk of surgical site infections (SSI) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS Patients admitted to an academic hospital from 2010 to 2016, who were older than 18 and had a laparoscopic or a laparoscopic converted to open cholecystectomy for complicated biliary tract disease were included. We compared those who had a preoperative ERCP to those who did not. Our primary endpoint was the rate of SSI. RESULTS A total of 640 patients were included. Of them, 122 (19.1%) received preoperative ERCP and 518 (80.9%) did not. The former had different preoperative diagnoses compared to non-ERCP patients (choledocholithiasis [35.2%-7.0%], acute cholecystitis [31.2%-76.4%], gallstone pancreatitis [20.5%-16.2%], and cholangitis [13.1%-0.4%], p < 0.001). The rate of SSI was higher in the preoperative ERCP group (11.5%-4.0%, p = 0.005). In a multivariable analysis conversion to open (OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.06-6.21, p = 0.037) and preoperative ERCP (OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 1.34-7.22, p = 0.008) were the only independent predictors of SSI. CONCLUSION Preoperative ERCP is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of SSI after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Cervical spinal cord injury after blunt assault: Just a pain in the neck?

BACKGROUND We aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) after blunt assault. METHODS The ACS National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) 2012 Research Data Set was used to identify victims of blunt assault using the ICD-9 E-codes 960.0, 968.2, 973. ICD-9 codes 805.00, 839.00, 806.00, 952.00 identified cervical vertebral fractures/dislocations and CSCI. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of CSCI. RESULTS 14,835 (2%) out of 833,311 NTDB cases were blunt assault victims and thus included. 217 (1%) had cervical vertebral fracture/dislocation without CSCI; 57 (0.4%) had CSCI. Age ≥55 years was independently predictive of CSCI; assault by striking/thrown object, facial fracture, and intracranial injury predicted the absence of CSCI. 25 (0.02%) patients with CSCI underwent cervical spinal fusion. CONCLUSIONS CSCI is rare after blunt assault. While the odds of CSCI increase with age, facial fracture or intracranial injury predicts the absence of CSCI. SUMMARY The incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) after blunt assault was investigated. 14,835 blunt assault victims were identified; 217 had cervical vertebral fracture/dislocation without CSCI; 57 had CSCI. Age ≥55 years was found to independently predict CSCI, while assault by striking/thrown object, facial fracture, and intracranial injury predicted the absence of CSCI.