Opinions of Practicing Surgeons on the Appropriateness of Published Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Trauma Patients: An International Cross-Sectional Survey

2016 ◽  
Vol 223 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Peter D. Faris ◽  
Chad G. Ball ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Damage Control ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Indications For Use

scholarly journals Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
◽  
Niklas Bobrovitz ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Penetrating Trauma ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Iliac Vessel ◽  
Civilian Trauma ◽  
Definitive Surgery

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.

scholarly journals Evidence for Use of Damage Control Surgery and Damage Control Interventions in Civilian Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
Niklas Bobrovitz ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
Chad G. Ball ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Penetrating Trauma ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Iliac Vessel ◽  
Civilian Trauma ◽  
Definitive Surgery

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) 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.

scholarly journals Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Civilian Trauma Patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 263 (5) ◽  
pp. 1018-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
Niklas Bobrovitz ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Chad G. Ball ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Damage Control ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Civilian Trauma ◽  
Indications For Use

Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1187-1196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
Niklas Bobrovitz ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Chad G. Ball ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Damage Control ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Civilian Trauma ◽  
Indications For Use

scholarly journals Resuscitation and coagulation in the severely injured trauma patient

2011 ◽  
Vol 366 (1562) ◽  
pp. 192-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Midwinter ◽  
Tom Woolley
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Patient ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Physiological Status ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Tissue Hypoperfusion ◽  
Coagulation Status ◽  
Haemostatic Resuscitation

Developments in the resuscitation of the severely injured trauma patient in the last decade have been through the increased understanding of the early pathophysiological consequences of injury together with some observations and experiences of recent casualties of conflict. In particular, the recognition of early derangements of haemostasis with hypocoagulopathy being associated with increased mortality and morbidity and the prime importance of tissue hypoperfusion as a central driver to this process in this population of patients has led to new resuscitation strategies. These strategies have focused on haemostatic resuscitation and the development of the ideas of damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery continuum. This in turn has led to a requirement to be able to more closely monitor the physiological status, of major trauma patients, including their coagulation status, and react in an anticipatory fashion.

scholarly journals World trauma education: hemorrhage control training for healthcare providers in India

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Andrea Smith ◽  
Sarah Caughey ◽  
Susan Liu ◽  
Cassandra Villegas ◽  
Mohan Kilaru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Bleeding Control ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Hemorrhage Control ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Poor Outcomes ◽  
Trauma Education

BackgroundHemorrhage remains a major cause of death around the world. Eighty percent of trauma patients in India do not receive medical care within the first hour. The etiology of these poor outcomes is multifactorial. We describe findings from the first Stop the Bleed (StB) course recently offered to a group of medical providers in southern India.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 101 participants who attended StB trainings in India was performed. Pre-training and post-training questionnaires were collected from each participant. In total, 88 healthcare providers’ responses were analyzed. Three bleeding control skills were presented: wound compression, wound packing, and tourniquet application.ResultsAmong participants, only 23.9% had received prior bleeding control training. Participants who reported feeling ‘extremely confident’ responding to an emergency medical situation rose from 68.2% prior to StB training to 94.3% post-training. Regarding hemorrhage control abilities, 37.5% felt extremely confident before the training, compared with 95.5% after the training. For wound packing and tourniquet application, 44.3% and 53.4%, respectively, felt extremely confident pre-training, followed by 97.7% for both skills post-training. Importantly, 90.9% of StB trainees felt comfortable teaching newly acquired hemorrhage control skills. A significant majority of participants said that confidence in their wound packing and tourniquet skills would improve with more realistic mannequins.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first StB training in India. Disparities in access to care, long transport times, and insufficient numbers of prehospital personnel contribute to its significant trauma burden. Dissemination of these critical life-saving skills into this region and the resulting civilian interventions will increase the number of trauma patients who survive long enough to reach a trauma center. Additionally, considerations should be given to translating the course into local languages to increase program reach.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

Surgical Complications and Causes of Death in Trauma Patients that Require Temporary Abdominal Closure

2005 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
JosÉ A. Montalvo ◽  
JosÉ A. Acosta ◽  
Pablo RodrÍguez ◽  
Kathia Alejandro ◽  
AndrÉs SÁrraga
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Causes Of Death ◽  
Surgical Complication ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Hypovolemic Shock ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Temporary Abdominal Closure ◽  
Abdominal Closure

Temporary abdominal closure (TAC) has increasingly been employed in the management of severely injured patients to avoid abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and as part of damage control surgery (DCS). Although the use of TAC has received great interest, few data exist describing the morbidity and mortality associated with its use in trauma victims. The main goal of this study is to describe the incidence of surgical complications following the use of TAC as well as to define the mortality associated with this procedure. A retrospective review of patients admitted to a state-designated level 1 trauma center from April 2000 to February 2003 was performed. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, traumatic injury, and need for exploratory laparotomy and use of TAC. A total of 120 patients were included in the study. The overall mortality of trauma patients requiring TAC was 59.2 per cent. The most common causes of death were acute inflammatory process (50.7%), followed by hypovolemic shock (43.7%). The incidence of surgical complications was 26.6 per cent. Intra-abdominal abscesses were the most frequent surgical complication (10%). After multiple logistic regression analysis, increasing age and a numerically greater initial base deficit were found to be independent predictors of mortality in trauma patients that require TAC.

scholarly journals Management of Destructive Colon Injuries after Damage Control Surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (01) ◽  
pp. 036-040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Prakash ◽  
William Symons ◽  
Jad Chamieh
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Damage Control Surgery ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Fecal Diversion ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Stoma Formation ◽  
Diverting Stoma ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Colon Injuries

AbstractAfter the World War II, fecal diversion became the standard of care for colon injuries, although medical, logistic, and technical advancements have challenged this approach. Damage control surgery serves to temporize immediately life-threatening conditions, and definitive management of destructive colon injuries is delayed until after appropriate resuscitation. The bowel can be left in discontinuity for up to 3 days before edema ensues, but the optimal repair window remains within 12 to 48 hours. Delayed anastomosis performed at the take-back operation or stoma formation has been reported with variable results. Studies have revealed good outcomes in those undergoing anastomosis after damage control surgery; however, they point to a subgroup of trauma patients considered to be “high risk” that may benefit from fecal diversion. Risk factors influencing morbidity and mortality rates include hypotension, massive transfusion, the degree of intra-abdominal contamination, associated organ injuries, shock, left-sided colon injury, and multiple comorbid conditions. Patients who are not suitable for anastomosis by 36 hours after damage control may be best managed with a diverting stoma. Failures are more likely related to ongoing instability, and the management strategy of colorectal injury should be based mainly on the patient's overall condition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document