Search

Background: Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in surgical intensive care units. Although the indications and benefits of this procedure are well known, little has been studied in the adult surgical/trauma population about patient family satisfaction after tracheostomy placement.Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective study at our academic level I trauma center from 2015-2016 in patients who underwent elective tracheostomy. Family members were asked to complete an eight-point questionnaire using a forced Likert scale of graded responses. Questionnaires were administered prior to tracheostomy and again at 24-and 72-hour post-tracheostomy placement. Responses were compared using univariate analysis.Results: A total of 26 family members completed all 3 surveys. Family members believed loved ones appeared more comfortable, were more interactive, and were better progressing clinically. After 72 hours, family members felt less anxiety. There was no difference in perceptions of patient distress, ability to provide support, or their worry about scars, or comfort in visiting them.Discussion: Family members believed tracheostomies provided greater patient comfort, increased interactive abilities, better progress in their care, and experienced less anxiety after placement. Family satisfaction may therefore be an additional benefit in support of earlier tracheostomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thromboelastography (TEG) with platelet mapping has been proposed as an assay to detect the presence of antiplatelet agents (APA), yet no study has evaluated TEG markers of platelet dysfunction in acute trauma patients stratified by the use of preinjury APA. We hypothesized that patients on preinjury APA would demonstrate prolonged TEG markers of platelet dysfunction compared with those not on preinjury APA. This retrospective review evaluated all trauma patients admitted to a Level I trauma center from February 2011 to April 2013 who received a TEG within the first 24 hours of admission. Patients were classified as receiving preinjury APA or no APA if their documented medications included either aspirin or adenosine diphosphate (ADP) antagonists, including clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor. A total of 129 patients were included (APA, n = 35; no APA n = 94) in the study. The time from admission to the first TEG was similar (APA 175 ± 289 minutes versus no APA 216 ± 321 minutes, P = 0.5). There was no significant difference in TEG markers of platelet dysfunction, including per cent ADP inhibition (APA 61.7 ± 25.8% versus no APA 62.3 ± 28.8%; P = 0.91) or per cent arachidonic acid inhibition (APA 58.2 ± 31% versus no APA 53.8 ± 34%; P = 0.54). Both groups had similar proportion of severe platelet dysfunction, defined as ADP inhibition greater than 70 per cent (APA 40% versus no APA 40%; P = 0.8) and arachidonic acid inhibition greater than 70 per cent (APA 40% versus no APA 39%; P = 0.89). In conclusion, platelet dysfunction after major trauma is common. Therefore, TEG alone should not be used to evaluate for the presence of APA due to apparent lack of specificity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWHs) are rare but require a variety of operative techniques to repair including bone anchor fixation (BAF) when tissue tears off bony structures. This study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis of BAF technique for blunt TAWH repair. Bone anchor fixation and no BAF repairs were compared, hypothesizing increased hernia recurrence with BAF repair. Methods: A secondary analysis of the WTA blunt TAWH multicenter study was performed including all patients who underwent repair of their TAWH. Patients with BAF were compared to those with no BAF with bivariate analyses. Results: 176 patients underwent repair of their TAWH with 41 (23.3%) undergoing BAF. 26 (63.4%) patients had tissue fixed to bone, with 7 of those reinforced with mesh. The remaining 15 (36.6%) patients had bridging mesh anchored to bone. The BAF group had a similar age, sex, body mass index, and injury severity score compared to the no BAF group. The time to repair (1 vs 1 days, P =.158), rate of hernia recurrence (9.8% vs 12.7%, P =.786), and surgical site infection (SSI) (12.5% vs 15.6%, P =.823) were all similar between cohorts. Conclusions: This largest series to date found nearly one-quarter of TAWH repairs required BAF. Bone anchor fixation repairs had a similar rate of hernia recurrence and SSI compared to no BAF repairs, suggesting this is a reasonable option for repair of TAWH. However, future prospective studies are needed to compare specific BAF techniques and evaluate long-term outcomes including patient-centered outcomes such as pain and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most blunt liver injuries are treated with nonoperative management (NOM), and angiointervention (AI) has become a common adjunct. This study evaluated the use of AI, blood product utilization, pharmacological venous thromboembolic prophylaxis (VTEp), and outcomes in severe blunt liver trauma managed nonoperatively at level I versus II trauma centers. Methods: American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) study (2013-2016), including adult patients with severe blunt liver injuries (AIS score>/= 3) treated with NOM, was conducted. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics, severity of liver injury (AIS), use of AI, blood product utilization, and VTEp were collected. Outcomes included survival, complications, failure of NOM, blood product utilization, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Study included 2825 patients: 2230(78.9%) in level I and 595(21.1%) in level II centers. There was no difference in demographics, clinical presentation, or injury severity between centers. Angiointervention was used in 6.4% in level I and 7.2% in level II centers (P=.452). Level II centers were less likely to use LMWH for VTEp (.003). There was no difference in mortality or failure of NOM. In level II centers, there was a significantly higher 24-hour blood product utilization (PRBC P =.015 and platelets P =.002), longer ventilator days (P =.012), and longer ICU (P<.001) and hospital LOS (P =.024). The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia was significantly higher in level II centers (P =.003). Conclusion: Utilization of AI and NOM success rates is similar in level I and II centers. However, the early blood utilization, ventilator days, and VAP complications are significantly higher in level II centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study evaluates the utility of chest (CXR) and pelvis (PXR) X-ray, as adjuncts to the primary survey, in screening geriatric blunt trauma (GBT) patients for abdominal injury or need for laparotomy.Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients 65-89 years in the 2014 National Trauma Data Bank. X-ray injuries were identified by ICD9 codes and defined as any injury felt to be readily detectable by a non-radiologist. X-ray findings were dichotomized as "both negative" (no injury presumptively apparent on CXR or PXR) or "either positive" (any injury presumptively apparent on CXR or PXR). Rates of abdominal injuries and laparotomy were compared and used to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The primary outcomes were abdominal injury and laparotomy. The secondary outcomes included mortality, ventilator days, and hospital days.Results: A total of 202 553 patients met criteria. Overall, 9% of patients with either positive X-rays had abdominal injury and 2% laparotomy vs. 1.1% and .3% with both negative (P < .001). The specificity for any positive X-ray was 79% for abdominal injury and 78% for laparotomy. The sensitivity was 69% for abdominal injury and laparotomy. The either positive group had fewer ventilator days (.3 vs. .8, P < .0001), longer length of stay (7 vs. 5, P < .0001), and higher mortality (6% vs. 4%, P < .0001) vs both negative.Conclusion: CXR and PXR can be used to assess for intra-abdominal injury and need for laparotomy. GBT patients with either positive X-rays should continue workup regardless of mechanism due to the high specificity of this tool for abdominal injury and need for laparotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Field vital signs are integral in the American College of Surgeons (ASA) Committee on Trauma (COT) triage criteria for trauma team activation (TTA). Reliability of field vital signs in predicting first emergency department (ED) vital signs, however, may depend upon prehospital time. The study objective was to define the effect of prehospital time on correlation between field and first ED vital signs.Methods: All highest level TTAs at two Level I trauma centers (2008-2018) were screened. Exclusions were unrecorded prehospital vital signs and those dead on arrival. Demographics, prehospital time (scene time + transport time), injury data, and vital signs were collected. Differences between field and first ED vitals were determined using the paired Student's t test. Propensity score analysis, adjusting for age, sex, injury severity score (ISS), and mechanism of injury compared outcomes among patients with ISS ≥16. Multivariate linear regression determined impact of prehospital time on vital sign differences between field and ED among propensity-matched patients.Results: After exclusions, 21 499 patients remained. Mean prehospital time was 32 vs. 41 minutes (P < .001). On propensity score analysis, longer prehospital time was associated with significantly greater differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (P < .001), pulse pressure (PP) (P = .003), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, linear regression that demonstrated longer prehospital time was associated with greater differences in SBP, heart rate (HR), and PP (P < .001).Conclusions: Field vital signs are less likely to reflect initial ED vital signs when prehospital times are longer. Given the reliance of trauma triage criteria on prehospital vital signs, medical providers must be cognizant of this pitfall during the prehospital assessment of trauma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]