Trauma Surgeons’ Perceptions of Resuscitating Lethally Injured Patients for Organ Preservation

Background Trauma surgeons face a challenge when deciding whether to resuscitate lethally injured patients whose organ donor status is unknown. Data suggests practice pattern variability in this setting, but little is known about why. Materials and Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with trauma surgeons practicing in Level 1 or 2 trauma centers in Tennessee. Interviews focused on ethical dilemmas and resource constraints. Analysis was performed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Response rate was 73% (11/15). Four key themes emerged. All described resuscitating patients to buy time to collect more definitive clinical information and to identify family. Some acknowledged this served the secondary purpose of organ preservation. 11/11 participants felt a primacy of obligation to the patient in front of them even after it became apparent, they could not personally benefit. For 9/11 (82%), the moral obligation to consider organ preservation was secondary/balancing; 2/11 (18%) felt it was irrelevant/immoral. Resource allocation was commonly considered. All participants expressed some limitation to resources they would allocate. All participants conveyed clear moral agency in determining resuscitation extent when the goal was to save the patient’s life, however this was less clear when resuscitating for organ preservation. Across themes, perceptions of a “standard practice” existed but the described practices were not consistent across interviewees. Discussion Widely ranging perceptions regarding ethical and resource considerations underlie practices resuscitating toward organ preservation. Common themes suggest a lack of consensus. Despite expressed beliefs, there is no identifiable standard of practice amongst trauma surgeons resuscitating in this setting.

Acute Care Surgeons Spend More Time than General Surgeons on the Electronic Health Record (EHR)

Background The paradigm of Acute Care Surgery (ACS) emerged in response to decreasing operative opportunities for trauma surgeons and increasing need for surgical coverage in disciplines to which the expertise of trauma surgeons naturally extends. While the continued evolution of this specialty remains largely beneficial, unintended consequences may have arisen along the way. One aspect of ACS that remains to be thoroughly investigated is the impact of the electronic health record (EHR). The purpose of this study is to objectively quantify EHR usage for ACS and compare it to other general surgery specialties. Methods EHR user data were collected for fifteen ACS attendings and thirty-seven general surgery attendings from October 2014 to September 2019. Comparative analysis was conducted using two-tailed t-tests. Subgroup analysis was conducted for subspecialties included in the general surgery group. Results ACS attendings opened almost 3 times as many charts as general surgery attendings per month (180 vs 64 charts/month, P < .0001), and ultimately spent more time on the EHR as a result (10 vs 6.4 hours/month, P < .0001). Documentation was the most time consuming EHR task for both groups. Although ACS attendings spent less overall time per patient chart, the proportion of time spent on certain EHR tasks was similar to that of general surgery colleagues. Discussion The EHR imposes a disproportionate burden on ACS attendings compared to their general surgery counterparts, and additional study is warranted to improve usage. EHR usage burden has workforce implications for trainees considering a career in ACS.

The Role of Nonophthalmologists in the Primary Evaluation of Head Injury Patients with Ocular Injuries

Purpose—Visual complaints are common in trauma cases. However, not every institution provides immediate ophthalmic consultations 24 h per day. Some patients may receive an ophthalmic consultation but without positive findings. We tried to evaluate risk factors for ocular emergencies in trauma patients. Then, the ophthalmologists could be selectively consulted. Methods—From January 2019 to December 2019, head injuries patients concurrent with suspected ocular injuries were retrospectively reviewed. All of the patients received comprehensive ophthalmic examinations by ophthalmologists. Patients with and without ocular injuries were compared. Specific ophthalmic evaluations that could be primarily performed by primary trauma surgeons were also analyzed in detail. Results—One hundred forty cases were studied. Eighty-nine (63.6%) patients had ocular lesions on computed tomography (CT) scans or needed ophthalmic medical/surgical intervention. Near 70% (69.7%, 62/89) of patients with ocular injuries were diagnosed by CT scans. There was a significantly higher proportion of penetrating injuries in patients with ocular injuries than in patients without ocular injuries (22.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.004). Among the patients with blunt injuries (N = 118), 69 (58.5%) patients had ocular injuries. These patients had significantly higher proportions of periorbital swelling (89.9% vs. 67.3%, p = 0.002) and diplopia (26.1% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.014) than patients without ocular injuries. Conclusions—In patients with head injuries, concomitant ocular injuries with indications for referral should always be considered. CT serves as a rapid and essential diagnostic tool for the evaluation of concomitant ocular injuries. Ophthalmologists could be selectively consulted for patients with penetrating injuries or specific ocular presentations, thus reducing the burden of ophthalmologists.

Emergency angiography for trauma patients and potential association with acute kidney injury

Background Angiography has been conducted as a hemostatic procedure for trauma patients. While several complications, such as tissue necrosis after embolization, have been reported, little is known regarding subsequent acute kidney injury (AKI) due to contrast media. To elucidate whether emergency angiography would introduce kidney dysfunction in trauma victims, we compared the incidence of AKI between patients who underwent emergency angiography and those who did not. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a nationwide trauma database (2004–2019), and adult trauma patients were included. The indication of emergency angiography was determined by both trauma surgeons and radiologists, and AKI was diagnosed by treating physicians based on a rise in serum creatinine and/or fall in urine output according to any published standard criteria. Incidence of AKI was compared between patients who underwent emergency angiography and those who did not. Propensity score matching was conducted to adjust baseline characteristics including age, comorbidities, mechanism of injury, vital signs on admission, Injury Severity Scale (ISS), degree of traumatic kidney injury, surgical procedures, and surgery on the kidney, such as nephrectomy and nephrorrhaphy. Results Among 230,776 patients eligible for the study, 14,180 underwent emergency angiography. The abdomen/pelvis was major site for angiography (10,624 [83.5%]). Embolization was performed in 5,541 (43.5%). Propensity score matching selected 12,724 pairs of severely injured patients (median age, 59; median ISS, 25). While the incidence of AKI was rare, it was higher among patients who underwent emergency angiography than in those who did not (140 [1.1%] vs. 67 [0.5%]; odds ratio = 2.10 [1.57–2.82]; p < 0.01). The association between emergency angiography and subsequent AKI was observed regardless of vasopressor usage or injury severity in subgroup analyses. Conclusions Emergency angiography in trauma patients was probably associated with increased incidence of AKI. The results should be validated in future studies.

Proposal of standardization of every step of angiographic procedure in bleeding patients from pelvic trauma

Trauma accounts for a third of the deaths in Western countries, exceeded only by cardiovascular disease and cancer. The high risk of massive bleeding, which depends not only on the type of fractures, but also on the severity of any associated parenchymal injuries, makes pelvic fractures one of the most life-threatening skeletal injuries, with a high mortality rate. Therefore, pelvic trauma represents an important condition to correctly and early recognize, manage, and treat. For this reason, a multidisciplinary approach involving trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, emergency room physicians and interventional radiologists is needed to promptly manage the resuscitation of pelvic trauma patients and ensure the best outcomes, both in terms of time and costs. Over the years, the role of interventional radiology in the management of patient bleeding due to pelvic trauma has been increasing. However, the current guidelines on the management of these patients do not adequately reflect or address the varied nature of injuries faced by the interventional radiologist. In fact, in the therapeutic algorithm of these patients, after the word “ANGIO”, there are no reports on the different possibilities that an interventional radiologist has to face during the procedure. Furthermore, variations exist in the techniques and materials for performing angioembolization in bleeding patients with pelvic trauma. Due to these differences, the outcomes differ among different published series. This article has the aim to review the recent literature on optimal imaging assessment and management of pelvic trauma, defining the role of the interventional radiologist within the multidisciplinary team, suggesting the introduction of common and unequivocal terminology in every step of the angiographic procedure. Moreover, according to these suggestions, the present paper tries to expand the previously drafted algorithm exploring the role of the interventional radiologist in pelvic trauma, especially given the multidisciplinary setting.