Emergency Department Thoracotomy: A Cost-Effective Model for Simulation Training

Background: Complex hepatic injuries grades IV—V are highly lethal. The objective of this study is to assess the multidisciplinary approach for their management and to evaluate if survival could be improved with this approach. Study Design: Prospective 54-month study of all patients sustaining hepatic injuries grades IV—V managed operatively at a Level I Trauma Center. Main outcome measure: survival. Statistical analysis: univariate and stepwise logistic regression. Results: Seventy-five patients sustained penetrating (47/63%) and blunt (28/37%) injuries. Seven (9%) patients underwent emergency department thoracotomy with a mortality of 100%. Out of the 75 patients, 52 (69%) sustained grade IV, and 23 (31%) grade V. The estimated blood loss was 3,539±-3,040 ml. The overall survival was 69%, adjusted survival excluding patients requiring emergency department thoracotomy was 76%. Survival stratified to injury grade: grade IV 42/52–81%, grade V 10/23–43%. Mortality grade IV versus V injuries (p <0.002; RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.52–5.70). Risk factors for mortality: packed red blood cells transfused in operating room (p=0.024), estimated blood loss (p<0.001), dysryhthmia (p<0.0001), acidosis (p=0.051), hypothermia (p=0.04). The benefit of angiography and angioembolization indicated: 12% mortality (2/17) among those that received it versus a 36% mortality (21/58) among those that did not (p=0.074; RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.08–1.25). Stepwise logistic regression identified as significant independent predictors of outcome: estimated blood loss (p=0.0017; RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08–1.41) and number of packed red blood cells transfused in the operating room (p=0.0358; RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01–1.34). Conclusions: The multidisciplinary approach to the management of these severe grades of injuries appears to improve survival in these highly lethal injuries. A prospective multi-institutional study is needed to validate this approach.

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness of Initial Revision Digit Amputation Performed in the Emergency Department Versus the Operating Room

Hand ◽

10.1177/1558944718790577 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 15 (2) ◽

pp. 208-214 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Joseph A. Gil ◽

Avi D. Goodman ◽

Andrew P. Harris ◽

Neill Y. Li ◽

Arnold-Peter C. Weiss

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Operating Room ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Initial Management ◽

Fingertip Amputation ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Initial Procedure ◽

The Cost ◽

Cost Effectiveness Threshold

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of performing initial revision finger amputation in the emergency department (ED) versus in the operating room (OR) accounting for need for unplanned secondary revision in the OR. Methods: We retrospectively examined patients presenting to the ED with traumatic finger and thumb amputations from January 2010 to December 2015. Only those treated with primarily revision amputation were included. Following initial management, the need for unplanned reoperation was assessed and associated with setting of initial management. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the cost-effectiveness threshold for initial management in the ED versus the OR. Results: Five hundred thirty-seven patients had 677 fingertip amputations, of whom 91 digits were initially primarily revised in the OR, and 586 digits were primarily revised in the ED. Following initial revision, 91 digits required unplanned secondary revision. The unplanned secondary revision rates were similar between settings: 13.7% digits from the ED and 12.1% of digits from the OR ( P = .57). When accounting for direct costs, an incidence of unplanned revision above 77.0% after initial revision fingertip amputation in the ED would make initial revision fingertip amputation in the OR cost-effective. Therefore, based on the unplanned secondary revision rate, initial management in the ED is more cost-effective than in the OR. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the incidence of unplanned/secondary revision of fingertip amputation rate after the initial procedure was performed in the ED versus the OR.

Download Full-text