The mortality rate of patients with hemodynamic instability due to severe pelvic fracture is reported to be 40–60 % despite a multidisciplinary treatment approach. Angioembolization and external fixation of the pelvis are the main procedures used to control bleeding in these patients. Several studies have shown that preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) is effective for hemorrhage control, despite being small and observational in nature. The purpose of this study was to describe a Korean trauma center’s early experience with PPP in unstable patients with pelvic fractures and to evaluate its effectiveness. Between January 2012 and May 2015, 30 patients with hemodynamic instability caused by pelvic fracture were enrolled in this study. PPP has been performed in 14 patients since May 2014. Data of pelvic fracture patients with hemodynamic instability were selected from Wonju Severance Christian Hospital Pelvic Trauma Database and were analyzed retrospectively. Mean age and mean ISS were 60.4 ± 18.8 years and 39.2 ± 8.1 in 30 unstable patients with pelvic fracture. Mean SBP was 89.1 ± 24.7 mmHg, and mean hemoglobin was 10.6 ± 2.3 g/dL. When the non-PPP group (16 patients) and the PPP group (14 patients) were compared, there was no significant difference in the age, gender, ISS, and occurrence of associated injury (p = 0.82, p = 0.23, p = 0.92, and p = 0.60, respectively). Mortality rate due to acute hemorrhage were 37.5 % in the non-PPP group and 14.3 % in the PPP group. In the PPP group, three patients underwent PPP in the hybrid operating room, and a laparotomy was performed in three patients. Mean systolic blood pressure increased significantly after PPP (71.6 ± 9.8 vs. 132.2 ± 36.4 mmHg, p = 0.002). In unstable patients with pelvic fractures, PPP can be used as an effective treatment, complementary to AE, to control pelvic bleeding.

Traumatic pancreatic injuries are rare and present diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties. We evaluated the usefulness of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and transpapillary pancreatic stent in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic trauma patients. We reviewed medical records of 83 pancreas trauma patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the suspicion of pancreas duct injury between January 1983 and December 2016. Patient notes, radiologic findings, laboratory investigations, operative records, and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography reports were reviewed. Pre-endoscopic retrograde pancreatography abdominal computed tomography was performed in 52 patients. Twenty-seven patients of them were diagnosed with a major pancreatic duct injury by subsequent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Eleven major pancreatic duct injuries (40.7%) were missed by the pre-endoscopic retrograde pancreatography abdominal CT. Major pancreatic duct injury was confirmed by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in 43 patients. These 43 major pancreatic duct injury patients were classified into the Operative (n = 21), Stent (n = 15), and Conservative (n = 7) groups according to the first treatment modality which was chosen by attending surgeon. Age, initial white blood cell count, initial serum amylase, associated injury, and major pancreatic duct injury site were similar among groups, while the rate of parenchymal leakage (Dye leakage confined to pancreatic capsule) on endoscopic retrograde pancreatography findings differed. Parenchymal leakage was most common in the Conservative group. Pancreas related mortality occurred in 1 (4.76%) Operative group, 2 (13.33%) Stent group, and 0 (0%) Conservative group. Pancreas related complication occurred in 16 (76.19%) Operative group, 10 (66.67%), Stent group and 5 (71.43%) Conservative group. There were no statistically significant differences in the occurrence rate of pancreas related complications and mortalities among three groups. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography helps clinicians choose a treatment modality for major pancreatic duct injury since it provides information about the precise condition of the major pancreatic duct injury. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography with transpapillary pancreatic stenting also shows promise as a substitute for laparotomy or pancreatic resection in selected patients.

The objective of this study was to analyze the differences in clinical presentation and characteristics with regard to diaphragmatic injury between blunt trauma patients with severe low rib fractures and those without severe low rib fractures. The medical records of all patients with diaphragmatic injuries who were surgically treated at this level I trauma center, between January 2004 and December 2016 were reviewed. Patient notes, radiologic findings, and operative reports were evaluated. All of the diaphragmatic injuries were confirmed based on the operative findings. Rib fracture with displacement between the ends of the fracture of more than half the width of the fractured rib on computed tomography was classified as 'severe rib fracture'. Patients were categorized into 2 groups and analyzed: those who had more than one severe rib fracture in low ribs on the ipsilateral side of the diaphragm injury (Severe group), and those with no severe rib fracture (Non-severe group). Delayed diagnosis of diaphragmatic injury was more frequent in the Severe group than in the Non-severe group (81.8% vs 36.8%, p-value = 0.026). With regard to initial indications for operation, intrathoracic visceral herniation was more frequent in the Non-severe group (78.9% vs 18.2%, p-value = 0.002), while hemothorax was more frequent in the Severe group (63.6% vs 5.3%, p-value = 0.001). Central type diaphragmatic laceration was more frequent in the Non-severe group than in the Severe group (78.9% vs 18.2%, p-value = 0.002). The diameter of diaphragmatic injury was larger in the Non-severe group than in the Severe group (9.70 ± 4.10 cm vs 4.80 ± 3.60 cm, p-value = 0.004). The results of this study imply that a low threshold for thoracotomy or laparotomy should be considered in blunt trauma patients with severe low rib fractures for the purpose of hidden diaphragmatic injury detection and management.

Kim K, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2019 May;60(5):474-480. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2019.60.5.474

Delta neutrophil index (DNI) can be used as a biomarker for infection to predict patient outcomes. We aimed to investigate the relationship between DNI and clinical outcomes in trauma patients who underwent abdominal surgery. We retrospectively analyzed injured patients who underwent emergent abdominal surgery in the regional trauma center of Wonju Severance Christian Hospital between March 2016 and May 2018. Patient characteristics, operation type, preoperative and postoperative laboratory findings, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed for risk factors associated with mortality. Overall, 169 patients (mean age, 53.8 years; 66.3% male) were enrolled in this study, of which 19 (11.2%) died. The median injury severity score (ISS) was 12. The non-survivors had a significantly higher ISS [25(9–50) vs. 10(1–50), p<0.001] and serum lactate level (9.00±4.10 vs. 3.04±2.23, p<0.001) and more frequent shock (63.2% vs 23.3%, p<0.001) and solid organ injury (52.6% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.013) than the survivors. There were significant differences in postoperative DNI between the two groups (p<0.009 immediate post-operation, p = 0.001 on postoperative day 1 [POD1], and p = 0.013 on POD2). Logistic regression analysis showed that the independent factors associated with mortality were postoperative lactate level (odds ratio [OR] 1.926, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.101–3.089, p = 0.007), postoperative sequential organ failure assessment score (OR 1.593, 95% CI 1.160–2.187, p = 0.004), and DNI on POD1 (OR 1.118, 95% CI 1.028–1.215, p = 0.009). The receiver operating characteristics curve demonstrated that the area under the curve of DNI on POD1 was 0.887 (cut-off level: 7.1%, sensitivity 85.7%, and specificity 84.4%). Postoperative DNI may be a useful biomarker to predict mortality in trauma patients who underwent emergent abdominal surgery.

L Of 95 patients, 26 (27.4%) were transported to the hybrid operating room and underwent emergency interventional radiology or surgery on site. l Seven patients underwent IR and surgery concurrently in the hybrid OR because of unstable pelvic fracture, liver injury, and brain haemorrhage. l The long median time from ER arrival to hybrid emergent procedure indicates the need for a new workflow to reduce this time and to facilitate hybrid OR use.