Traumatic pancreatic injuries are rare, but their diagnosis and management are challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate and report our experiences with the management of pancreatic injuries.
We identified all adult patients (age >15) with pancreatic injuries from our trauma registry over a 7-year period. Data related to patients’ demographics, diagnoses, operative information, complications, and hospital course were abstracted from the registry and medical records.
A total of 45 patients were evaluated. Most patients had blunt trauma (89%) and 21 patients (47%) had pancreatic injuries of grade 3 or higher. Twenty-eight patients (62%) underwent laparotomy and 17 (38%) received nonoperative management (NOM). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 24% (n=11), and only one patient died after NOM (due to a severe traumatic brain injury). Twenty-two patients (79%) underwent emergency laparotomy and six (21%) underwent delayed laparotomy. A drainage procedure was performed in 12 patients (43%), and pancreatectomy was performed in 16 patients (57%) (distal pancreatectomy [DP], n=8; DP with spleen preservation, n=5; pancreaticoduodenectomy, n=2; total pancreatectomy, n=1). Fourteen (31%) pancreas-specific complications occurred, and all complications were successfully managed without surgery. Solid organ injuries (n=14) were the most common type of associated abdominal injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3).
For traumatic pancreatic injuries, an appropriate treatment method should be considered after evaluation of the accompanying injury and the patient’s hemodynamic status. NOM can be performed without mortality in appropriately selected cases.
Trauma is the top cause of death in people under 45 years of age. Deaths from severe trauma can have a negative economic impact due to the loss of people belonging to socio-economically active age groups. Therefore, efforts to reduce the mortality rate of trauma patients are essential. The purpose of this study was to investigate preventable mortality in trauma patients and to identify factors and healthcare-related challenges affecting mortality. Ultimately, these findings will help to improve the quality of trauma care.
We analyzed the deaths of 411 severe trauma patients who presented to Gachon University Gil Hospital regional trauma center in South Korea from January 2015 to December 2017, using an expert panel review.
The preventable death rate of trauma patients treated at the Gachon University Gil Hospital regional trauma center was 8.0%. Of these, definitely preventable deaths comprised 0.5% and potentially preventable deaths 7.5%. The leading cause of death in trauma patients was traumatic brain injury. Treatment errors most commonly occurred in the intensive care unit (ICU). The most frequent management error was delayed treatment of bleeding.
Most errors in the treatment of trauma patients occurred in early stages of the treatment process and in the ICU. By identifying the main causes of preventable death and errors during the course of treatment, our research will help to reduce the preventable death rate. Appropriate trauma care systems and ongoing education are also needed to reduce preventable deaths from trauma.
Citations
The following recommendations are presented herein: All trauma patients admitted to the resuscitation room should be constantly (or periodically) monitored for parameters such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, body temperature, electrocardiography, Glasgow Coma Scale, and pupil reflex (1C). Chest AP and pelvic AP should be performed as the standard initial trauma series for severe trauma patients (1B). In patients with severe hemodynamically unstable trauma, it is recommended to perform extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (eFAST) as an initial examination (1B). In hemodynamically stable trauma patients, eFAST can be considered as the initial examination (2B). For the diagnosis of suspected head trauma patients, brain computed tomography (CT) should be performed as an initial examination (1B). Cervical spine CT should be performed as an initial imaging test for patients with suspected cervical spine injury (1C). It is not necessary to perform chest CT as an initial examination in all patients with suspected chest injury, but in cases of suspected vascular injury in patients with thoracic or high-energy damage due to the mechanism of injury, chest CT can be considered for patients in a hemodynamically stable condition (2B). CT of the abdomen is recommended for patients suspected of abdominal trauma with stable vital signs (1B). CT of the abdomen should be considered for suspected pelvic trauma patients with stable vital signs (2B). Whole-body CT can be considered in patients with suspicion of severe trauma with stable vital signs (2B). Magnetic resonance imaging can be considered in hemodynamically stable trauma patients with suspected spinal cord injuries (2B).
The following key questions and recommendations are presented herein: when is airway intubation initiated in severe trauma? Airway intubation must be initiated in severe trauma patients with a GCS of 8 or lower (1B). Should rapid sequence intubation (RSI) be performed in trauma patients? RSI should be performed in trauma patients to secure the airway unless it is determined that securing the airway will be problematic (1B). What should be used as an induction drug for airway intubation? Ketamine or etomidate can be used as a sedative induction drug when RSI is being performed in a trauma patient (2B). If cervical spine damage is suspected, how is cervical protection achieved during airway intubation? When intubating a patient with a cervical spine injury, the extraction collar can be temporarily removed while the neck is fixed and protected manually (1C). What alternative method should be used if securing the airway fails more than three times? If three or more attempts to intubate the airway fail, other methods should be considered to secure the airway (1B). Should trauma patients maintain normal ventilation after intubation? It is recommended that trauma patients who have undergone airway intubation maintain normal ventilation rather than hyperventilation or hypoventilation (1C). When should resuscitative thoracotomy be considered for trauma patients? Resuscitative thoracotomy is recommended for trauma patients with penetrating injuries undergoing cardiac arrest or shock in the emergency room (1B).
There is increasing evidence in the literature regarding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) globally, but few cases have been reported in Korea. We aimed to describe our experience of successful Zone III REBOA and to discuss its algorithm, techniques, and related complications.
We reviewed consecutive cases who survived from hypovolemic shock after Zone III REBOA placement for 4 years. We reviewed patients’ baseline characteristics, physiological status, procedural data, and outcomes.
REBOA was performed in 44 patients during the study period, including 10 patients (22.7%) who underwent Zone III REBOA, of whom seven (70%) survived. Only one patient was injured by a penetrating mechanism and survived after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All patients underwent interventions to stop bleeding immediately after REBOA placement.
This case series suggests that Zone III REBOA is a safe and feasible procedure that could be applied to traumatic shock patients with normal FAST findings who receive a chest X-ray examination at the initial resuscitation.
Citations
Immediate post-laparotomy hypotension (PLH) is a precipitous drop in blood pressure caused by a sudden release of abdominal tamponade after laparotomy in cases of severe hemoperitoneum. The effect of laparotomy on blood pressure in patients with significant hemoperitoneum is unknown.
In total, 163 patients underwent laparotomy for trauma from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015. Exclusion criteria included the following: negative laparotomy, only a hollow viscous injury, and hemoperitoneum <1,000 mL. After applying those criteria, 62 patients were enrolled in this retrospective review. PLH was defined as a decrease in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥10 mmHg within 10 minutes after laparotomy.
The mean estimated hemoperitoneum was 3,516 mL. The incidence of PLH was 23% (14 of 62 patients). The MAP did not show significant differences before and after laparotomy (5 minutes post-laparotomy, 67.5±16.5 vs. 68.3±18.8 mmHg;
PLH may be less frequent and less devastating than it is often considered. Surgical hemostasis during laparotomy is important. Laparotomy with adequate resuscitation may explain the equivalent outcomes in the two groups.
Accurate and appropriate prehospital field triage is essential for a trauma system. The Korean trauma system (established in 2014) uses the trauma field triage algorithm of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This study evaluated the suitability of the CDC field triage criteria for major trauma cases (injury severity score >15) in Korea.
This retrospective cohort study evaluated trauma patients who presented at the authors’ regional trauma center from January 1 to May 7, 2017. The undertriage and overtriage rates of each CDC field triage step were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated for each step.
Among the 1,009 enrolled patients, 168 (16.7%) had major trauma. The undertriage/overtriage rates of each step (steps I, II, III, and IV) of CDC field triage were 9.2%/47.4%, 6.3%/50.8%, 4.5%/59.4%, and 5.3%/78.9%, respectively. The AUC values of each CDC triage step were 0.722, 0.783, 0.791, and 0.615, respectively. The AUC values of the separate components of each step (physiologic criteria, anatomic criteria, mechanism-of-injury criteria, and special considerations) were 0.722, 0.648, 0.647, and 0.456, respectively.
The CDC field triage system is acceptable, but not ideal, for Korean trauma care. If we follow the protocol, it would be preferable to omit step IV. The Korean Triage and Acuity Scale may be a good indicator for in-hospital triage. However, a new triage protocol that is simple to estimate on-scene while having good performance should be developed.
Citations
The optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) measured by ultrasonography is among the indicators of intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation. However, whether ONSD measurement is useful for initial treatment remains controversial. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between ONSD measured by computed tomography (CT) and ICP in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
A total of 246 patients with severe trauma from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2015 were included in the study. A total of 179 patients with brain damage with potential for ICP elevation were included in the TBI group. The remaining 67 patients comprised the non-TBI group. A comparison was made between the two groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of ONSD when used as a screening test for the TBI group including those with TBI with midline shift (with elevated ICP).
The mean injury severity score (ISS) and glasgow coma scale (GCS) of all patients were 24.2±6.1 and 5.4±0.8, respectively. The mean ONSD of the TBI group (5.5±1.0 mm) was higher than that of the non-TBI group (4.7±0.6 mm). Some significant differences in age (55.3±18.1 vs. 49.0±14.8,
An ONSD of >5.5 mm, measured on CT, is a good indicator of ICP elevation. However, since an ONSD is not sensitive enough to detect an increased ICP, it should only be used as one of the parameters in detecting ICP along with other screening tests.
Citations
Citations