Decision-Making in Damage Control Surgery

2022 ◽  
pp. 553-571
Author(s):  
Tim J. Stansfield
2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
GS Arul ◽  
HEJ Pugh ◽  
SJ Mercer ◽  
MJ Midwinter

Introduction The concentration of major trauma experience at Camp Bastion has allowed continuous improvements to occur in the patient pathway from the point of wounding to surgical treatment. These changes have involved clinical management as well as alterations to the physical layout of the hospital, training and decision making. Consideration of the human factors has been a major part of these improvements. Methods We describe the Camp Bastion patient pathway with the communication template that focused decision making at various key moments during damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery (DCR–DCS). This system identifies four key stages: ‘command huddle’, ‘snap brief’, ‘sit-reps’ (situation reports) and ‘sign-out/debrief’. The attitude of staff to communication and decision making is also evaluated. Results Twenty cases admitted to Camp Bastion with battlefield injuries were studied from 6 September to 6 October 2012. Qualitative responses from 115 members of staff were collected. All patients were haemodynamically shocked with a median pH of 7.25 (range: 6.83–7.40) and a median of 18 units of mixed red cells and plasma were transfused. In 89% of instances, theatre staff were aware of what was required of them at the beginning of the case, 86% felt there were regular updates and 93% understood what was required of them as the case progressed. Conclusions The evolution of the hospital at Camp Bastion has been a unique learning experience in the field of major trauma. The Defence Medical Services have responded with continuous innovation to optimise DCR–DCS for seriously injured patients. Together with the improvements in clinical care, a communication and decision making matrix was developed. Staff evaluation showed a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of communication.


Author(s):  
Carlos A. Ordoñez ◽  
Michael Parra ◽  
Alberto García ◽  
Fernando Rodríguez ◽  
Yaset Caicedo ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. e240202
Author(s):  
Benjamin McDonald

An 80-year-old woman presented to a regional emergency department with postprandial pain, weight loss and diarrhoea for 2 months and a Computed Tomography (CT) report suggestive of descending colon malignancy. Subsequent investigations revealed the patient to have chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) with associated bowel changes. She developed an acute-on-chronic ischaemia that required emergency transfer, damage control surgery and revascularisation. While the patient survived, this case highlights the importance of considering CMI in elderly patients with vague abdominal symptoms and early intervention to avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 147-154
Author(s):  
C. Güsgen ◽  
A. Willms ◽  
R. Schwab

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
◽  
Niklas Bobrovitz ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes). Methods We searched 11 databases (1950–April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions. Results Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications. Conclusions Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document