Search

Background: Combat casualties are frequently injured in austere settings where modern imaging modalities are unavailable. Exploratory laparotomies are often performed in these settings when there is suspicion for intra-abdominal injury. Prior studies of combat casualties reported non-therapeutic laparotomy (NTL) rates as high as 32%. Given improvements in combat casualty care over time, we evaluated NTLs performed during later years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan., Methods: Military personnel with combat-related injuries (6/1/2009-12/31/2014) who underwent exploratory laparotomy based on concern for abdominal injury (i.e. not performed for proximal vascular control or fecal diversion) and were evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (Germany) before being transferred to participating U.S. military hospitals were assessed. An NTL was defined as a negative laparotomy without substantial intra-abdominal injuries requiring repair. Characteristics, indications for laparotomy, operative findings, and outcomes were examined., Results: Among 244 patients who underwent laparotomies, 41 (16.8%) had NTLs and 203 (83.2%) had therapeutic laparotomies (i.e. positive findings). Patients with NTLs had more computed tomography scans concerning for injury (48.8% vs 27.1%; p = 0.006), less penetrating injury mechanisms (43.9% vs 71.9%; p < 0.001), and lower Injury Severity Scores (26 vs 33; p = 0.003) compared to patients with therapeutic laparotomies. Patients with NTLs were also less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (70.7 vs 89.2% for patients with therapeutic laparotomies; p = 0.007). No patients with NTLs developed abdominal surgical site infections (SSI) compared to 16.7% of patients with therapeutic laparotomies (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups (p = 0.198)., Conclusions: Our proportion of NTLs was lower than reported from earlier years during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No infectious complications from NTLs (i.e. abdominal SSIs) were identified. Nevertheless, surgeons should continue to have a low threshold for exploratory laparotomy in military patients in austere settings with concern for intra-abdominal injury., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: Intestinal anastomoses in military settings are performed in severely injured patients who often undergo damage control laparotomy in austere environments. We describe anastomotic outcomes of patients from recent wars., Methods: Military personnel with combat-related intra-abdominal injuries (June 2009-December 2014) requiring laparotomy with resection and anastomosis were analyzed. Patients were evacuated from Iraq or Afghanistan to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (Germany) before being transferred to participating U.S. military hospitals., Results: Among 341 patients who underwent 1053 laparotomies, 87 (25.5%) required ≥1 anastomosis. Stapled anastomosis only was performed in 57.5% of patients, while hand-sewn only was performed in 14.9%, and 9.2% had both stapled and hand-sewn techniques (type unknown for 18.4%). Anastomotic failure occurred in 15% of patients. Those with anastomotic failure required more anastomoses (median 2 anastomoses, interquartile range [IQR] 1-3 vs. 1 anastomosis, IQR 1-2, P = .03) and more total laparotomies (median 5 laparotomies, IQR 3-12 vs. 3, IQR 2-4, P = .01). There were no leaks in patients that had only hand-sewn anastomoses, though a significant difference was not seen with those who had stapled anastomoses. While there was an increasing trend regarding surgical site infections (SSIs) with anastomotic failure after excluding superficial SSIs, it was not significant. There was no difference in mortality., Discussion: Military trauma patients have a similar anastomotic failure rate to civilian trauma patients. Patients with anastomotic failure were more likely to have had more anastomoses and more total laparotomies. No definitive conclusions can be drawn about anastomotic outcome differences between hand-sewn and stapled techniques.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are well-recognized complications after exploratory laparotomy for abdominal trauma; however, little is known about SSI development after exploration for battlefield abdominal trauma. We examined SSI risk factors after exploratory laparotomy among combat casualties., Methods: Military personnel with combat injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan (June 2009 to May 2014) who underwent laparotomy and were evacuated to participating US military hospitals were included. Log-binominal regression was used to identify SSI risk factors., Results: Of 4,304 combat casualties, 341 patients underwent a total of 1,053 laparotomies. Abdominal SSIs were diagnosed in 49 patients (14.4%): 8% with organ space SSI, 4% with deep incisional SSI, and 4% with superficial SSIs (4 patients had multiple SSIs). Patients with SSIs had more colorectal (p < 0.001), small bowel (p = 0.010), duodenum (p = 0.006), pancreas (p = 0.032), and abdominal vascular injuries (p = 0.040), as well as prolonged open abdomen (p = 0.004) and more infections diagnosed before the SSI (or final exploratory laparotomy) versus non-SSI patients (p < 0.001). Sustaining colorectal injuries (risk ratio [RR], 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-6.45), duodenum injuries (RR, 6.71; 95% CI, 1.73-25.58), and being diagnosed with prior infections (RR, 10.34; 95% CI, 5.05-21.10) were independently associated with any SSI development. For either organ space or deep incisional SSIs, non-intra-abdominal infections, fecal diversion, and duodenum injuries were independently associated, while being injured via an improvised explosive device was associated with reduced likelihood compared with penetrating nonblast (e.g., gunshot wounds) injuries. Non-intra-abdominal infections and hypotension were independently associated with organ space SSIs development alone, while sustaining blast injuries were associated with reduced likelihood., Conclusion: Despite severity of injuries and the battlefield environment, the combat casualty laparotomy SSI rate is relatively low at 14%, with similar risk factors and rates reported following severe civilian trauma., Level of Evidence: Epidemiological, level III., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Abdominal injuries historically account for 13% of battlefield surgical procedures. We examined the occurrence of exploratory laparotomies and subsequent abdominal surgical site infections (SSIs) among combat casualties., Methods: Military personnel injured during deployment (2009-2014) were included if they required a laparotomy for combat-related trauma and were evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, before being transferred to participating US military hospitals., Results: Of 4304 combat casualties, 341 (7.9%) underwent laparotomy. Including re-explorations, 1053 laparotomies (median, 2; interquartile range, 1-3; range, 1-28) were performed with 58% occurring within the combat zone. Forty-nine (14.4%) patients had abdominal SSIs (four with multiple SSIs): 27 (7.9%) with deep space SSIs, 14 (4.1%) with a deep incisional SSI, and 12 (3.5%) a superficial incisional SSI. Patients with abdominal SSIs had larger volume of blood transfusions (median, 24 versus 14 units), more laparotomies (median, 4 versus 2), and more hollow viscus injuries (74% versus 45%) than patients without abdominal SSIs. Abdominal closure occurred after 10 d for 12% of the patients with SSI versus 2% of patients without SSI. Mesh adjuncts were used to achieve fascial closure in 20.4% and 2.1% of patients with and without SSI, respectively. Survival was 98% and 96% in patients with and without SSIs, respectively., Conclusions: Less than 10% of combat casualties in the modern era required abdominal exploration and most were severely injured with hollow viscus injuries and required massive transfusions. Despite the extensive contamination from battlefield injuries, the SSI proportion is consistent with civilian rates and survival was high., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Trauma, hemorrhage, and peritonitis have widely varying impacts on endocrine response in the injured patient. We sought to examine cortisol response in established non-human primate models of traumatic hemorrhage and intra-abdominal contamination., Methods: Cynomologus Macaques were separated into two experimental groups, the polytrauma and hemorrhage model, involving a laparoscopic liver resection with uncontrolled hemorrhage, cecal perforation, and soft tissue excision; and the traumatic hemorrhage model, involving only liver resection and uncontrolled hemorrhage. Cortisol levels were measured pre-operatively, at the time of injury, and at regular intervals until post-operative day 1., Results: Cortisol levels increased 600% from the pre-operative value in the polytrauma and hemorrhage model, with minimal changes (20%) in the hemorrhage only model., Conclusion: Cortisol levels increase dramatically in response to polytrauma and intra-abdominal contamination as compared to hemorrhage only. The lack of response in the hemorrhage only group may be due to relative adrenal insufficiency caused by the shock state or lack of enticing stimuli from fecal peritonitis., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Management of patients undergoing damage control laparotomy (DCL) involves many surgical, medical, and logistical factors. Ideal patient management optimizing fascial closure with regard to timing and closure techniques remains unclear. A retrospective review of patients undergoing DCL from 2000 to 2012 at an urban Level I trauma center was undertaken. Mortality of DCL decreased over the study period from 62.5 to 34.6 per cent, whereas enterocutaneous fistula rate decreased from 12.5 to 3.8 per cent. Delayed primary fascial closure rate improved from 22.2 to 88.2 per cent. Time to closure (P < 0.001), time to first attempted closure (P < 0.001), and number of explorations (P < 0.001) were associated with ability to achieve delayed primary fascial closure. In subgroup analysis, achievement of delayed primary fascial closure was decreased with time to closure after one week (91.7% vs 52.0%, P = 0.002) and time to first attempted closure after two days (86.5% vs 70.0%, P = 0.042). In multivariate analysis, time to closure (odds ratio: 0.13, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.39; P < 0.001) and time to first attempted closure (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.99; P = 0.046) were the only factors associated with achieving delayed primary fascial closure. Timing of attempted closure plays a significant role in attaining delayed primary fascial closure, highlighting the importance of early re-exploration.

Importance: Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF), enteroatmospheric fistula (EAF), and intra-abdominal sepsis/abscess (IAS) are major challenges for surgeons caring for patients undergoing damage control laparotomy after trauma., Objective: To determine independent predictors of ECF, EAF, or IAS in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy after trauma, using the AAST Open Abdomen Registry., Design: The AAST Open Abdomen registry of patients with an open abdomen following damage control laparotomy was used to identify patients who developed ECF, EAF, or IAS and to compare these patients with those without these complications. Univariate analyses were performed to compare these groups of patients. Variables from univariate analyses differing at P < .20 were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model to identify independent risk factors for ECF, EAF, or IAS., Setting: Fourteen level I trauma centers., Participants: A total of 517 patients with an open abdomen following damage control laparotomy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Complication of ECF, EAF, or IAS., Results: More patients in the ECF/EAF/IAS group than in the group without these complications underwent bowel resection (63 of 111 patients [57%] vs 133 of 406 patients [33%]; P < .001). Within the first 48 hours after surgery, the ECF/EAF/IAS group received more colloids (P < .03) and total fluids (P < .03) than did the group without these complications. The ECF/EAF/IAS group underwent almost twice as many abdominal reexplorations as did the group without these complications (mean [SD] number, 4.1 [4.1] vs 2.2 [3.4]; P < .001). After multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of ECF/EAF/IAS were a large bowel resection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.56 [95% CI, 1.88-6.76]; P < .001), a total fluid intake at 48 hours of between 5 and 10 L (AOR, 2.11 [95% CI, 1.15-3.88]; P = .02) or more than 10 L (AOR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.04-3.57]; P = .04), and an increasing number of reexplorations (AOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.21]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Large bowel resection, large-volume fluid resuscitation, and an increasing number of abdominal reexplorations were statistically significant predictors of ECF, EAF, or IAS in patients with an open abdomen after damage control laparotomy.

Duodenal trauma represents a unique challenge to the surgeon due to its relative rarity, anatomic location, and often the difficulty in diagnosing and managing these injuries. Despite these challenges, significant advances have been made over the previous century, and mortality has fallen to as low as 17%. The CT scan is the primary modality for diagnosis in the blunt trauma patient, and thorough surgical exploration at laparotomy is the mainstay for penetrating injuries. Management is guided by the grade of injury, with low-grade hematomas managed by observation, intermediate grade injuries by primary repair, and high-grade injuries with a damage control surgery approach. While pyloric exclusion remains the most common technique to augment primary repair in intermediate and higher grade injuries, the utility of this procedure has come into question in current literature, and an overall ‘less-is-more’ surgical approach has been advocated in recent publications. Complications following duodenal trauma are common and include fistulae, duodenal obstruction, and infectious complications. However, the overall morbidity and mortality have improved with these injuries. Future investigation is needed to determine the optimal management approach for these challenging patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]