The song remains the same although the instruments are changing: complications following selective non-operative management of blunt spleen trauma: a retrospective review of patients at a level I trauma centre from 1996 to 2007

BACKGROUND: Despite a widespread shift to selective non-operative management (SNOM) for blunt splenic trauma, there remains uncertainty regarding the role of adjuncts such as interventional radiological techniques, the need for follow-up imaging, and the incidence of long-term complications. We evaluated the success of SNOM (including splenic artery embolization, SAE) for the management of blunt splenic injuries in severely injured patients. METHODS: Retrospective review (1996-2007) of the Alberta Trauma Registry and health records for blunt splenic trauma patients, aged 18 and older, with injury severity scores of 12 or greater, admitted to the Foothills Medical Centre. RESULTS: Among 538 eligible patients, 150 (26%) underwent early operative intervention. The proportion of patients managed by SNOM rose from 50 to 78% over the study period, with an overall success rate of SNOM of 87%, while injury acuity remained unchanged over time. Among SNOM failures, 65% underwent surgery within 24 hours of admission. Splenic arterial embolization (SAE) was used in only 7% of patients managed non-operatively, although at least 21% of failed SNOM had contrast extravasation potentially amenable to SAE. Among Calgary residents undergoing SNOM, hospital readmission within six months was required in three (2%), all of whom who required emergent intervention (splenectomy 2, SAE 1) and in whom none had post-discharge follow-up imaging. Overall, the use of post-discharge follow-up CT imaging was low following SNOM (10%), and thus no CT images identified occult hemorrhage or pseudoaneurysm. We observed seven cases of delayed splenic rupture in our population which occurred from five days to two months following initial injury. Three of these occurred in the post-discharge period requiring readmission and intervention. CONCLUSIONS: SNOM was the initial treatment strategy for most patients with blunt splenic trauma with 13% requiring subsequent operative intervention intended for the spleen. Cases of delayed splenic rupture occurred up to two months following initial injury. The low use of both follow-up imaging and SAE make assessment of the utility of these adjuncts difficult and adherence to formalized protocols will be required to fully assess the benefit of multi-modality management strategies

Does trauma team activation associate with the time to CT scan for those suspected of serious head injuries?

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes the leading cause of posttraumatic mortality. Practically, the major interventions required to treat TBI predicate expedited transfer to CT after excluding other immediately life-threatening conditions. At our center, trauma responses variably consist of either full trauma activation (FTA) including an attending trauma surgeon or a non-trauma team response (NTTR). We sought to explore whether FTAs expedited the time to CT head (TTCTH). METHODS: Retrospective review of augmented demographics of 88 serious head injuries identified from a Regional Trauma Registry within one year at a level I trauma center. The inclusion criteria consisted of a diagnosis of head injury recorded as intubated or GCS < 13; and CT-head scanning after arriving the emergency department. Data was analyzed using STATA. RESULTS: There were 58 FTAs and 30 NTTRs; 86% of FTAs and 17% of NTTRs were intubated prehospital out of 101 charts reviewed in detail; 13 were excluded due to missing data. Although FTAs were more seriously injured (median ISS 29, MAIS head 19, GCS score at scene 6.0), NTTRs were also severely injured (median ISS 25, MAIS head 21, GCS at scene 10) and older (median 54 vs. 26 years). Median TTCTH was double without dedicated FTA (median 50 vs. 26 minutes, p < 0.001), despite similar justifiable delays (53% NTTR, 52% FTA). Without FTA, most delays (69%) were for emergency intubation. TTCTH after securing the airway was longer for NTTR group (median 38 vs. 26 minutes, p =0.0013). Even with no requirements for ED interventions, TTCTH for FTA was less than half versus NTTR (25 vs. 61 minutes, p =0.0013). Multivariate regression analysis indicated age and FTA with an attending surgeon as significant predictors of TTCTH, although the majority of variability in TTCTH was not explained by these two variables (R² = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Full trauma activations involving attending trauma surgeons were quicker at transferring serious head injury patients to CT. Patients with FTA were younger and more seriously injured. Discerning the reasons for delays to CT should be used to refine protocols aimed at minimizing unnecessary delays and enhancing workforce efficiency and clinical outcome

Efficacy and safety of active negative pressure peritoneal therapy for reducing the systemic inflammatory response after damage control laparotomy (the Intra- peritoneal Vacuum Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Article deposited according to agreement with BMC, December 2, 2010 and according to publisher policies: http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/copyright [May 30, 2013].YesFunding provided by the Open Access Authors Fund

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

Background Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.Methods The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.Discussion OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention. Trial registration: National Institutes of Health (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095). Keywords Intraperitoneal sepsis, Septic shock, Peritonitis, Open abdomen, Multiple organ dysfunction, Laparotomy, Randomized controlled trial, Global healthPeer reviewe