Does Lower Extremity Fracture Fixation Technique Influence Neurologic Outcomes in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury? The EAST Brain vs. Bone Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine whether lower extremity fracture fixation technique and timing (≤24 vs. \u3e24 hours) impact neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. METHODS A prospective observational study was conducted across 30 trauma centers. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of \u3e2, and a diaphyseal femur or tibia fracture requiring external fixation (Ex-Fix), intramedullary nailing (IMN), or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The analysis was conducted using analysis of variamce, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable regression models. Neurologic outcomes were measured by discharge Ranchos Los Amigos Revised Scale (RLAS-R). RESULTS Of the 520 patients enrolled, 358 underwent Ex-Fix, IMN, or ORIF as definitive management. Head AIS was similar among cohorts. The Ex-Fix group experienced more severe lower extremity injuries (AIS score, 4–5) compared with the IMN group (16% vs. 3%, p = 0.01) but not the ORIF group (16% vs. 6%, p = 0.1). Time to operative intervention varied between the cohorts with the longest time to intervention for the IMN group (median hours: Ex-Fix, 15 [8–24] vs. ORIF, 26 [12–85] vs. IMN, 31 [12–70]; p \u3c 0.001). The discharge RLAS-R score distribution was similar across the groups. After adjusting for confounders, neither method nor timing of lower extremity fixation influenced the discharge RLAS-R. Instead, increasing age and head AIS score were associated with a lower discharge RLAS-R score (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002–1.03 and OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.75–3.22), and a higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score on admission (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97) was associated with higher RLAS-R score at discharge. CONCLUSION Neurologic outcomes in TBI are impacted by severity of the head injury and not the fracture fixation technique or timing. Therefore, the strategy of definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures should be dictated by patient physiology and the anatomy of the injured extremity and not by the concern for worsening neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III

Does Lower Extremity Fracture Fixation Technique Influence Neurologic Outcomes in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury? The EAST Brain vs. Bone Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine whether lower extremity fracture fixation technique and timing (≤24 vs. \u3e24 hours) impact neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. METHODS A prospective observational study was conducted across 30 trauma centers. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of \u3e2, and a diaphyseal femur or tibia fracture requiring external fixation (Ex-Fix), intramedullary nailing (IMN), or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The analysis was conducted using analysis of variamce, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable regression models. Neurologic outcomes were measured by discharge Ranchos Los Amigos Revised Scale (RLAS-R). RESULTS Of the 520 patients enrolled, 358 underwent Ex-Fix, IMN, or ORIF as definitive management. Head AIS was similar among cohorts. The Ex-Fix group experienced more severe lower extremity injuries (AIS score, 4–5) compared with the IMN group (16% vs. 3%, p = 0.01) but not the ORIF group (16% vs. 6%, p = 0.1). Time to operative intervention varied between the cohorts with the longest time to intervention for the IMN group (median hours: Ex-Fix, 15 [8–24] vs. ORIF, 26 [12–85] vs. IMN, 31 [12–70]; p \u3c 0.001). The discharge RLAS-R score distribution was similar across the groups. After adjusting for confounders, neither method nor timing of lower extremity fixation influenced the discharge RLAS-R. Instead, increasing age and head AIS score were associated with a lower discharge RLAS-R score (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002–1.03 and OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.75–3.22), and a higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score on admission (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97) was associated with higher RLAS-R score at discharge. CONCLUSION Neurologic outcomes in TBI are impacted by severity of the head injury and not the fracture fixation technique or timing. Therefore, the strategy of definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures should be dictated by patient physiology and the anatomy of the injured extremity and not by the concern for worsening neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III

Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial

BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p \u3c 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p \u3c 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p \u3e 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p \u3c 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p \u3c 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV