Search

Fragility hip fractures result from low energy mechanisms and are associated with morbidity and mortality, especially in the elderly. We examined outcomes 2 years before and after implementation of a fragility fracture program. The pathway involves emergency department clearance and admission by a medical service with orthopedic consultation. Demographics include age, gender, fracture location, injury severity score (ISS), and ASA. Outcomes include DVT/PE, mortality, disposition, non-operative rate, ICU admission, time to surgery (TTS), length of stay (LOS), and admission service. 777 patients were included (383 PRE/394 POS). POS patients were slightly younger. Trauma admission decreased and LOS and TTS increased. There were no other demographic or outcome differences. Although TTS increased, it remained under 48 hours. Length of stay increase was possibly a reflection of COVID-19. Decreased trauma admission demonstrates pathway adherence. Further studies need to be conducted to verify that quality care can be maintained after initiation of a hip fragility pathway., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Multimodal analgesia in rib fractures (RFs) is designed to maximize pain control while minimizing narcotics. Prior research with intravenous lidocaine (IVL) efficacy produced conflicting results. We hypothesized IVL infusion reduces opioid utilization and pain scores., Methods: A retrospective review of RF patients at an ACS-verified Level I trauma center from April 2018 to 2/2020 was conducted. Patients (pts) stratified as receiving IVL vs no IVL. Initial lidocaine dose: 1 mg/kg/hr with a maximum of 3 mg/kg/hr. Duration of infusion: 48 h. Pain quantified by the Stanford Pain Score system (PS). Bivariate and multivariate analyses of variables were performed on SPSS, version 21 (IBM Corp)., Results: 414 pts met inclusion criteria: 254 males and 160 females. The average age for the non-IVL = 67.4 ± 15.2 years vs IVL = 58.3 ± 17.1 years ( P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for ISS, PS for initial 48 h, and ICU length of stay (LOS). There was a difference in morphine equivalents per hour: non-IVL = 1.25 vs IVL = 1.72 ( P = .004) and LOS non-IVL = 10.2+/-7.6 vs IVL = 7.82+/-4.94. By analyzing IVL pts in a crossover comparison before and after IVL, there was reduction in opiates: 3.01 vs 1.72 ( P < .001) and PS: 7.0 vs 4.9 ( P < .001). Stanford Pain Score system reduction in the IVL = 48.3 ± 23.9%, but less effective in narcotic dependency (27 ± 22.9%, P = .035); IVL pts had hospital cost reduction: $82,927 vs $118,202 ( P < .01)., Discussion: In a crossover analysis, IVL is effective for reduction of PS and opiate use and reduces hospital LOS and costs. Patient age may confound interpretation of results. Our data support IVL use in multimodal pain regimens. Future prospective study is warranted.

Splenic injuries are mostly treated with nonoperative management (NOM) with observation to monitor for continued hemorrhage and holding early chemical DVT prophylaxis to reduce the risk of NOM failure. Eberle et al demonstrated chemoprophylaxis prior to 72 hours didn't increase failure rate of NOM. We chose to extrapolate this finding and compare outcomes in high-grade splenic injuries (HGSI) with chemoprophylaxis before and after 48 hours. From January 2013 to December 2017, 104 patients with HGSI received chemoprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin (UH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) within 72 hours of diagnosis. Of these, 8 patients received chemoprophylaxis within 24 hours, 46 between 24 and 48 hours, and 50 patients between 48 and 72 hours. This population consisted of 70 males and 34 females, with an average age of 40.1 years. The average ISS was 23 and the majority (77%) were grade 3 injuries. We observed 6 failures of NOM: 1 in the <24 hour group, 3 in the 24-48 hour group, and 2 in the 48-72 hour group. There was no statistically significant difference between the <24 hour and >24 groups or between the <48 hour and 48-72 hour groups. A linear regression analysis created a model describing the time to initiation of DVT prophylaxis using age, sex, splenic injury grade, and ISS; the failure rate decreased by 0.00002% for each hour prior to giving DVT prophylaxis, with a P value of .111. We conclude a noninferiority statement that DVT prophylaxis prior to 48 hours does not increase the risk of NOM failure.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are widely utilized for elective colorectal surgery to improve outcomes and decrease costs, but few studies have evaluated the impact of ERAS protocols on cost with respect to anatomic site of resection. This study evaluated the impact of ERAS protocol on elective colon resections by site and longitudinal impact over time., Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study of 598 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection before and after implementation of ERAS protocol from 2013 to 2017 was performed. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and cost. Comparative and multivariate inferential statistics were used to assess additional outcomes., Results: A total of 598 patients (100 pre-ERAS vs 498 post-ERAS) were evaluated with an overall median LOS of 4 days for right and left colectomies and 3 days for transverse colectomies. When comparing type of resection before and after ERAS protocol introduction, an increased LOS for left hemicolectomies from 3.09 to 4.03 days ( P = .047) was noted, with all other comparisons failing to reach statistical significance. Over time, an initial decrease in LOS for MIS approach after protocol introduction was observed; however, this effect diminished in the ensuing years and had no significant effect overall. Total cost of care was significantly increased post-ERAS for all cohorts except transverse colectomies. No further statistically significant differences were found., Conclusion: After an initial improvement in outcomes, continued utilization of ERAS protocols demonstrated no improvement in LOS compared to pre-ERAS data and increased cost overall for patients regardless of site of resection.

The frequency of computed tomography (CT) ordered by emergency department physicians at our facility was noted to sharply increase in early 1998 after a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article recommending routine CT in patients with suspected appendicitis. Numerous studies have proven the accuracy of CT for detecting acute appendicitis; however, the most appropriate use of CT continues to evolve. We sought to evaluate the effect of increased CT use on negative appendectomy rate and perforation rate at our institution and to better delineate in whom CT is most beneficial. CT use was retrospectively evaluated and found to sharply increase in April 1998. The authors then reviewed the medical records of 291 consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy 18 months before and after the NEJM article. Patients with interval appendectomies and those 12 years of age or younger were excluded. The remaining 226 patients constitute the study cohort. The study cohort was then divided into the two groups. The "Discriminate Group" consists of patients from the 18 months before the NEJM article impact and a period of selective CT use. The "Indiscriminate Group" comprises patients from the subsequent 18 months in which CT use was substantially higher and routinely obtained before surgical evaluation. After chart review an objective clinical score (Alvarado score) was assigned to each patient. Comparison was then made between the two groups on perforation rate, negative appendectomy rate, time delay to operating room, and Alvarado score. Additionally patients undergoing preoperative CT were compared with those without CT. These groups were also evaluated on the basis of negative appendectomy rate, perforation rate, and delay to the operating room. CT in patients with abdominal symptoms associated with appendicitis increased from 188 in the Discriminate Group to 1035 in the Indiscriminate Group. In the Discriminate Group the negative appendectomy rate was 15.1 per cent. After the indiscriminate use of CT the negative appendectomy rate decreased to 13.3 per cent, but this was not significant. Males experienced a decrease in the negative appendectomy rate from 10.1 to 6.9 per cent, whereas the rate for females increased slightly from 21.3 to 22.9 per cent. Again we found no statistical significance in these changes. The overall perforation rate of 17.9 per cent in the first 18 months decreased to 13.3 per cent in the following 18 months but again was not statistically significant. The Alvarado scores between the Discriminate and Indiscriminate groups were 6.7 and 7.3, respectively (P = 0.02). Patients with preoperative CT averaged 11.9 hours to the operating room compared with 6.5 hours for those without CT (P = 0.03). Use of CT did not decrease perforation rate but did globally reduce negative exploration (P = 0.05). This reduction in negative exploration however was not discriminated by sex. CT use in suspected acute appendicitis has greatly increased over the past several years. The dramatic increase in CT use at our institution has not resulted in dramatic decreases in negative appendectomy rate or statistically significant changes in perforation rate. The optimal use of CT in evaluating patients with suspected appendicitis has yet to be determined. Surgical consultation should be obtained early to avoid indiscriminate tests.

We assessed the effect of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) on the evaluation, outcome, and hospital charges of our observation-status trauma patient population. We conducted a retrospective study over 18 months; any patient initially admitted with <24-hour observation status, Glasgow Coma Score of 15, and negative drug screen was eligible. Patients were divided on the basis of BAC (BAC+ = >80 mg/dL; BAC- = <80 mg/dL). Two hundred twenty-six patients were observed during the study (2765 admissions). For the 66 BAC+ patients (range 90-392 mg/dL) there was a strong male predominance. There was no difference in diagnostic evaluation schema, delayed diagnosis, complications, cost, or conversions to full admission between the groups. We conclude that evaluation, outcome, and charges of observation trauma patients are the same regardless of BAC. Intoxication did not mask injury; therefore BAC+ patients do not require observation on the sole basis of intoxication if their evaluation is otherwise negative.