Search

Background: Recent studies have established cefepime as an effective treatment option for AmpC beta-lactamase (AmpC) Enterobacterales; however, the efficacy of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors is unclear. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if piperacillintazobactamis an appropriate alternative to cefepime for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) secondary to AmpC-producing organisms. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted in hospitalized adults with an IAI caused by an AmpC-producing organism and received either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam for definitive treatment after a source control procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of surgical site infections, recurrent IAIs, or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the composite outcome, hospital length of stay (LOS), microbiologic failure, study antibiotic duration, time to clinical resolution, and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Results: This study included 119 patients. There was no difference in the primary outcome between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (35% vs 27%, P = 0.14). Microbiological failure was the only secondary outcome with an observed difference between groups (17% vs 0%, P = 0.01): hospital LOS (15 vs 13 days, P = 0.09), days of therapy (7 vs 7 days, P = 0.87), time to clinical resolution (7 vs 4 days, P = 0.30), and CDI (1% vs 2%, P = 0.58) were all similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard of care for the treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) requiring intervention. Data suggest that low-grade BTAI (grade I [intimal tears] or grade II [intramural hematoma]) will resolve spontaneously if treated with nonoperative management (NOM) alone. There has been no comparison specifically between the use of NOM vs TEVAR for low-grade BTAI. We hypothesize that these low-grade injuries can be safely managed with NOM alone. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of all patients with a low-grade BTAI in the Aortic Trauma Foundation Registry from 2016 to 2021 was performed. The study population was 1 primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU length of stay, and ventilator days. RESULTS: A total of 880 patients with BTAI were enrolled. Of the 269 patients with low-grade BTAI, 218 (81%) were treated with NOM alone (81% grade I, 19% grade II), whereas 51 (19%) underwent a TEVAR (20% grade I, 80% grade II). There was no difference in demographic or mechanism of injury in patients with low-grade BTAI who underwent NOM vs TEVAR. There was a difference in mortality between NOM alone and TEVAR (8% vs 18%, p = 0.009). Aortic-related mortality was 0.5% in the NOM group and 4% in the TEVAR group (p = 0.06). Hospital and ICU length of stay and ventilator days were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: NOM alone is safe and appropriate management for low-grade BTAI, with lower mortality and decreased rates of complication when compared with routine initial TEVAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion. Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative). After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [ n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [ n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [ n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [ n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management. Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sarcopenia is a clinically relevant loss of muscle mass with implications of increased morbidity and mortality in adult trauma populations. Our study aimed to evaluate loss of muscle mass change in adult trauma patients with prolonged hospital stays. Retrospective analysis using institutional trauma registry to identify all adult trauma patients with hospital length of stay >14 days admitted to our Level 1 center between 2010 and 2017. All CT images were reviewed, and cross-sectional area (cm2) of the left psoas muscle was measured at the level of the third lumbar vertebral body to determine total psoas area (TPA) and Total Psoas Index (TPI) normalized for patient stature. Sarcopenia was defined as a TPI on admission below gender specific thresholds of 5.45(cm2/m2) in men and 3.85(cm2/m2) in women. TPA, TPI, and rates of change in TPI were then evaluated and compared between sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic adult trauma patients. There were 81 adult trauma patients who met inclusion criteria. The average change in TPA was -3.8 cm2 and TPI was -1.3 cm2. On admission, 23% (n = 19) of patients were sarcopenic while 77% (n = 62) were not. Non-sarcopenic patients had a significantly greater change in TPA (-4.9 vs. -0.31, p <0.0001), TPI (-1.7 vs. -0.13, p <0.0001), and rate of decrease in muscle mass (p = 0.0002). 37% of patients who were admitted with normal muscle mass developed sarcopenia during admission. Older age was the only risk factor independently associated with developing sarcopenia (OR: 1.04, 95%CI 1.00–1.08, p = 0.045). Over a third of patients with normal muscle mass at admission subsequently developed sarcopenia with older age as the primary risk factor. Patients with normal muscle mass at admission had greater decreases in TPA and TPI, and accelerated rates of muscle mass loss compared to sarcopenic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Large animal-related injuries (LARI) are relatively uncommon, but, nevertheless, a public hazard. The objective of this study was to better understand LARI injury patterns and outcomes.Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the 2016 National Trauma Data Bank and used ICD-10 codes to identify patients injured by a large animal. The primary outcome was severe injury pattern, while secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation usage.Results: There were 6,662 LARI included in our analysis. Most LARI (66%) occurred while riding the animal, and the most common type of LARI was fall from horse (63%). The median ISS was 9 and the most severe injuries (AIS ≥ 3) were to the chest (19%), head (10%), and lower extremities (10%). The overall mortality was low at 0.8%. Compared to non-riders, riders sustained more severe injuries to the chest (21% vs. 16%, p<0.001) and spine (4% vs. 2%, p<0.001). Compared to motor vehicle collisions (MVC), riders sustained fewer severe injuries to the head (10% vs. 12%, p<0.001) and lower extremity (10% vs. 12%, p=0.01). Compared to auto-pedestrian accidents, non-riders sustained fewer severe injuries to the head (11% vs. 19%, p<0.001) and lower extremity (10% vs. 20%, p<0.001).Conclusion: Patients involved in a LARI are moderately injured with more complex injuries occurring in the chest, head, and lower extremities. Fall from horse was the most common LARI mechanism. Overall mortality was low. Compared to non-riders, riders were more likely to sustain severe injuries to the chest and spine. Severe injury patterns were similar when comparing riders to MVC and, given that most LARI are riding injuries, we recommend trauma teams approach LARI as they would an MVC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After traumatic injury, primary anastomosis after colon resection has overtaken ostomy diversion. Improved technology facilitating primary anastomosis speed and integrity may have driven this change. Trends in ostomy versus anastomosis have yet to be quantified, and recent literature comparing outcomes is incomplete. The National Trauma Databank (2007-2014) was queried for all blunt colon injuries requiring resection. Patients were dichotomized into study groups based on whether they underwent ostomy creation. Ostomy creation frequency was compared over time. After subgrouping patients by colon injury location, multivariate regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and evaluated the impact of ostomy on clinical outcomes. A total of 13,949 colon injuries requiring colectomy were identified. Ostomy frequency did not vary by study year (P = 0.536). Univariate analysis showed that patients undergoing ostomy were older (median, 40 versus 32; P < 0.001) and more often had comorbidities (65% versus 56%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that ostomy creation was significantly associated with lower mortality after sigmoid colon injury (odds ratio, 0.512; P = 0.011) and higher rates of unplanned reoperation after transverse colon injury (odds ratio, 3.135; P = 0.048). Across all colon injuries, ostomies were significantly associated with longer hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and ventilator days. Ostomy creation for colonic injury has reached an equilibrium trough. The impact of ostomy creation varies by not only clinical outcome but also injury location. Further study is needed to define the optimal surgical management for blunt colon injuries requiring resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Mesh use is associated with increased risk of surgical site infection. • Mesh use is not associated with improved recurrence. • The benefits of reinforcing mesh placement are questionable. Blunt traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWH) occur in <1 % of trauma patients. Optimal repair techniques, such as mesh reinforcement, have not been studied in detail. We hypothesize that mesh use will be associated with increased surgical site infections (SSI) and not improve hernia recurrence. A secondary analysis of the Western Trauma Association blunt TAWH multicenter study was performed. Patients who underwent TAWH repair during initial hospitalization (1/2012–12/2018) were included. Mesh repair patients were compared to primary repair patients (non-mesh). A logistic regression was conducted to assess risk factors for SSI. 157 patients underwent TAWH repair during index hospitalization with 51 (32.5 %) having mesh repair: 24 (45.3 %) synthetic and 29 (54.7 %) biologic. Mesh patients were more commonly smokers (43.1 % vs. 22.9 %, p = 0.016) and had a larger defect size (10 vs. 6 cm, p = 0.003). Mesh patients had a higher rate of SSI (25.5 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.016) compared to non-mesh patients, but a similar rate of recurrence (13.7 % vs. 10.5%, p = 0.742), hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Mesh use (OR 3.66) and higher ISS (OR 1.06) were significant risk factors for SSI in a multivariable model. Mesh was used more frequently in flank TAWH and those with a larger defect size. Mesh use was associated with a higher incidence and risk of SSI but did not reduce the risk of hernia recurrence. When repairing TAWH mesh should be employed judiciously, and prospective randomized studies are needed to identify clear indications for mesh use in TAWH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]