Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open最新文献

Background: This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the setting of a level 1 trauma center.

Methods: We performed a retrospective study of our hospital data (2021-2024) on patients who underwent LC or RC. Using a previously validated intraoperative grading system, four grades of cholecystitis were defined as mild (A), moderate (B), severe (C), and extreme (D). Outcomes were operative times and rates of conversion to open surgery.

Results: In total, 260 patients (n=130 RC and n=130 LC) were included. Patients were primarily female (69.2%), with mean age of 47±18.3 years. The majority of cases had grade B cholecystitis (41.2%). Patients undergoing RC had lower operative times compared with LC in grade B (101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003) and grade C (134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038). Conversion rate to open cholecystectomy were similar in both groups (p=0.19).

Conclusion: RC had similar results as LC in terms of operative time and in fact has significantly lower operative time in patients with grade B and grade C cholecystitis.

Level of evidence: Level III-retrospective study.

Introduction: The utility of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for high-grade traumatic injuries remains unclear and data surrounding its use are limited. We hypothesized that PD does not result in improved outcomes when compared with non-PD surgical management of grade IV-V pancreaticoduodenal injuries.

Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 level 1 trauma centers from January 2010 to December 2020. Included patients were ≥15 years of age with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade IV-V duodenal and/or pancreatic injuries. The study compared operative repair strategy: PD versus non-PD.

Results: The sample (n=95) was young (26 years), male (82%), with predominantly penetrating injuries (76%). There was no difference in demographics, hemodynamics, or blood product requirement on presentation between PD (n=32) vs non-PD (n=63). Anatomically, PD patients had more grade V duodenal, grade V pancreatic, ampullary, and pancreatic ductal injuries compared with non-PD patients (all p<0.05). 43% of all grade V duodenal injuries and 40% of all grade V pancreatic injuries were still managed with non-PD. One-third of non-PD duodenal injuries were managed with primary repair alone. PD patients had more gastrointestinal (GI)-related complications, longer intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and longer hospital LOS compared with non-PD (all p<0.05). There was no difference in mortality or readmission. Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined PD to be associated with a 3.8-fold greater odds of GI complication (p=0.010) compared with non-PD. In a subanalysis of patients without ampullary injuries (n=60), PD patients had more anastomotic leaks compared with the non-PD group (3 (30%) vs 2 (4%), p=0.028).

Conclusion: While PD patients did not have worse hemodynamics or blood product requirements on admission, they sustained more complex anatomic injuries and had more GI complications and longer LOS than non-PD patients. We suggest that the role of PD should be limited to cases of massive destruction of the pancreatic head and ampullary complex, given the likely procedure-related morbidity and adverse outcomes when compared with non-PD management.

Level of evidence: IV, Multicenter retrospective comparative study.

Thirty-four per cent of deaths among Americans aged 1-46 are due to injury, and many of these deaths could be prevented if all hospitals performed as well as the highest-performing hospitals. The Institute of Medicine and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have called for learning health systems, with emphasis on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as a means of limiting preventable deaths. Reduction in mortality has been demonstrated when evidence-based trauma CPGs are adhered to; however, guidelines are variably updated, redundant, absent, inaccessible, or perceived as irrelevant. Ultimately, these barriers result in poor guideline implementation and preventable patient deaths. This multidisciplinary group of injury providers, clinical guidance developers and end users, public health and health policy experts and implementation scientists propose key areas for consideration in the definition of an ideal future state for clinical guidance development and dissemination. Suggestions include (1): professional societies collaborate rather than compete for guideline development.(2) Design primary clinical research for implementation, and where relevant, with guideline development in mind.(3) Select clinical topics for guideline development through systematic prioritization, with an emphasis on patient-centered outcomes.(4) Develop guideline authorship groups with a focus on transparency, equity of opportunity and diversity of representation.(5) Establish a plan for regular review and updating and provide the date the guideline was last updated for transparency.(6) Integrate options for adapting the guideline to local resources and needs at the time of development.(7) Make guidelines available on a platform that allows for open feedback and utilization tracking.(8) Improve discoverability of guidelines.(9) Optimize user-experience with a focus on inclusion of bedside-ready, mobile-friendly infographics, tables or algorithms when feasible.(10) Use open access and open licenses.(11) Disseminate clinical guidance via comprehensive and equitable communication channels. Guidelines are key to improve patient outcomes. The proposed focus to ensure trauma guidelines are equitably and effectively developed and disseminated globally.

Background: In June 2021, the Injury Research Engagement Project (I-REP) was established. In 2022, we preformed focus group analysis with patients/caregiver and researchers that resulted in themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase participation in trauma research. The importance of trust and well-established relationships was common across all groups. In this study, we aimed to further evaluate preferences regarding research procedures and outcomes, and develop a panel for sustained patient engagement.

Methods: We performed a multiphase, mixed methods study to elicit trauma stakeholders' perspectives regarding aspects of research. Previously published phase 1 involved focus group analysis. Phase 2 vignette-based surveys and phase 3 panel formation are described here. One survey was completed by patients/caregivers, and the second by trauma researchers. We compared the responses using independent t-tests. This was followed by a webinar and development of an I-REP panel of patients/caregivers.

Results: 60 patients/caregivers and 114 researchers participated in the online surveys, with completion rates of 68% and 69%, respectively. The majority of patients/caregivers were >45 years, female (66.7%), and >3 years out from their or their family member's injury (68.6%). The majority of the researchers were >35 years and male (56.2%). Participants were asked to gauge their perceptions of different research scenarios. The analysis identified themes emerging across groups. Several survey findings differed from phase 1, including motivations to participate (payment) and consent preferences (timing, approach). Racial and ethnic demographics of the participants were not collected.

Conclusions: Engaging trauma stakeholders results in research more relevant to patients' needs and priorities. Qualitative engagement methods that intentionally include a more diverse population and determining the appropriate format for specific questions may lead to results that are be more generalizable. The educational webinar was well received, and several participants opted to serve as I-REP panelists to collaborate with trauma researchers moving forward.

Level of evidence: IV.

Objectives: We sought to determine the optimal time to pre-activation for trauma team activation that resulted in maximum team efficiency, measured by the time to complete critical actions (TCCAs) during resuscitation. We hypothesized that there exists a time window for trauma team pre-activation that minimizes TCCA.

Methods: This is an exploratory retrospective analysis of video-reviewed traumas at a level 1 trauma center from January 1, 2018 to 28 February, 2022 that received the highest trauma team activation and had a pre-arrival notification. A total of 11 TCCA categories were calculated using video timestamps. To compare TCCAs from different categories, normalized TCCAs (nTCCAs) were calculated by dividing each TCCA by the median time of its category. Pre-activation times were categorized into three groups: long pre-activation (≥8 min), mid pre-activation (≥4 and ≤7 min), and short pre-activation (≥0 and ≤4).

Results: There were 466 video-recorded level 1 trauma activations, which resulted in 2334 TCCAs. Of the 466 activations, 152 occured on the patient's arrival (0 min pre-activation). The majority (425) of patients had a pre-activation time of <7 min. Pre-activation of 4-6 min resulted in all but blood transfusion TCCAs being <15 min. Furthermore, mid pre-activation category corresponded to the most efficient trauma teams, with nTCCAs significantly shorter (median=0.75 (IQR 0.3-1.3)) than long (median=1 (IQR 0.6-2)) or short activation groups (median=1 (IQR 0.6-1.6)). A greater proportion of nTCCAs were shorter than their category median in the mid pre-activation category compared with long and short categories (59.1% vs 48.3% and 40%, respectively; p<0.01).

Conclusions: In this exploratory study, a pre-activation time of 4-7 min is associated with the best team efficiency as measured by TCCAs during trauma team activations. This timeframe may be an optimal window for trauma team activations but needs prospective and external validation.

Level of evidence: Level 4 retrospective exploratory study.

Background: The use of low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) for resuscitation of patients with traumatic hemorrhage is becoming increasingly common. Practices regarding the administration of RhD-positive LTOWB to childbearing age females (CBAFs) vary between institutions due to concerns about RhD alloimmunization. This study examined practices related to LTOWB transfusion as they pertain to age and sex.

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the Shock, Whole blood, and Assessment of TBI (traumatic brain injury) trial, a prospective, multicenter observational cohort study where outcomes following LTOWB transfusion were analyzed at seven level 1 trauma centers between 2018 and 2021, as well as a survey on transfusion practices at these centers conducted in 2023. The proportion of patients who received LTOWB or components was examined over the course of the study and grouped by age and sex, and the RhD group of injured CBAFs was documented.

Results: A total of 1046 patients were evaluated: 130 females aged <50 years (CBAFs), 77 females aged ≥50 years; 661 males aged <50 years, and 178 males aged ≥50 years. Among them, 26.2% of CBAFs received RhD-positive LTOWB, whereas 57.1%-66.3% of other sex/age groups received LTOWB. The proportion of CBAFs who received LTOWB increased significantly throughout the 4 years of this study. Except for older women in years 2 and 4, CBAFs were significantly less likely to receive LTOWB than all other groups for the study period and individual years. Among the 33 CBAFs who received LTOWB and for whom an RhD type was available, 4/33 (12.1%) were RhD-negative, while 9/95 (9.5%) CBAFs who received component therapy were RhD-negative. RhD blood product selection practices varied considerably between institutions.

Conclusions: Many institutions transfused LTOWB to CBAFs. Policies regarding RhD product selection varied. Of the total cohort, the proportion of RhD-negative CBAFs who received LTOWB increased over time but remained lower than all other groups.

Level of evidence: 3.