Category Archives: Abdomen

Do Children With Low Grade Solid Organ Injury Need To Transfer To A Pediatric Trauma Center?

April 16, 2018 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Pediatric trauma centers have an excellent reputation when it comes to caring for children when compared to their adult counterparts. Overall mortality for major trauma is lower. Splenectomy rates and the use of angiography are less in children with solid organ injury. And because of this expertise, it is common for surrounding trauma centers of all levels transfer these patients to the nearest pediatric trauma center.

But is this always necessary? Many of these children have relatively minor injury, and the pediatric trauma centers can be few and far between unless you are on one of the coasts. Researchers at the University of Washington, Harborview, and Seattle Children’s looked at their experience with pediatric transfers (or lack thereof) with spleen injury.

They retrospectively looked at 15 years of transfer data. The Seattle hospitals are the catchment area for a huge geographic area in the northwest, and the state trauma system maintains detailed records on all transfers to a higher level of care. Patients 16 years or younger with low grade (I-III) spleen injury were included. In an effort to narrow the focus to relatively isolated spleen injury, patients were excluded if they had moderate injuries in other AIS body regions.

Here are the factoids:

During the study, over 54,000 patients were admitted to hospitals, but only 1,177 had isolated, low grade spleen injury
About 20% presented directly to a Level I or II trauma center, 30% presented to a lower level center and were transferred, and 50% stayed put at the lower level center they to which they presented
40 patients (3%) underwent an abdominal operation presumably for their spleen, but there was no difference based on which hospital they presented to or whether they were transferred
The incidence of total splenectomy was not different among the three groups
Likewise, there was no difference in ICU admission or ICU length of stay
The only significant difference was that patients who were not transferred to a pediatric center usually spent an extra day in the hospital

Bottom line: Injured children tend to do well, regardless of where they are treated. This study is huge and retrospective, which can cause analysis problems. And even given the size, the total number eligible for the study was relatively small. But it is the best study to date that shows that it is possible to treat select low grade injuries at non-pediatric, non-high level trauma centers. However, before going down this path, it is extremely important to define specific “safe” injuries to manage, and to have an escape valve available in case the patient takes an unexpected turn.

Abdomen

The Lucas CPR Device And Pregnancy

April 5, 2018 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Here’s an image of the Lucas automated CPR device. Here’s a question for you: can you use the Lucas chest compression device in a pregnant patient?

The official company answer is “no.” Obviously, this is one those areas that is tough to get research approval on, and the number of pregnant patients who might need it is very small. So basically, we have little experience to go on.

That being said, the reality is that prehospital agencies can and do use it for these patients on occasion. There is only one published case report that I could find (see reference below). The thing that makes using this device a little more challenging is that, to optimize blood pressure, late term pregnant patients need to have the uterus rolled off of the vena cava. This means tipping the patient to her left.

As you can see from the picture above, the design of the Lucas makes this a bit difficult. However, it can be done, either by tipping the board the patient is on or wedging something under the right side of the back plate.

And as always, make sure that you adhere to your local policies and procedures, or have permission from your medical director to use this device in this particular situation.

Reference: Cardiac arrest and resuscitation with an automatic mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS) due to anaphylaxis of a woman receiving caesarean section because of pre-eclampsia. Resuscitation 68(1):155-159, 2005.

Abdomen

Post-Embolization Syndrome In Trauma

March 14, 2018 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

A reader requested that I write about post-embolization syndrome. Not being an oncologist or oncologic surgeon, I honestly had never heard about this before, let alone in trauma care. So I figured I would read up and share. And fortunately it was easy; there’s all of one paper about it in the trauma literature.

Post-embolization syndrome is a constellation of symptoms including pain, fever, nausea, and ileus that occurs after angio-embolization of the liver or spleen. There are reports that it is a common occurrence (60-80%) in patients being treated for cancer, and there are a few papers describing it in patients with splenic aneurysm. But only one for trauma.

Children’s Hospital of Boston / Harvard Medical School retrospectively reviewed 12 years of their pediatric trauma registry data. For every child with a spleen injury who underwent angio-embolization, they matched four others with the same grade of injury who did not. A total of 448 children with blunt splenic injury were identified, and (thankfully) only 11 underwent angio-embolization. Nine had ongoing bleeding despite resuscitation, and two had developed splenic pseudoaneursyms.

Here are the factoids:

More of the children who underwent embolization had extravasation seen initially and required more blood products. They also had longer ICU (3 vs 1 day) and hospital stays (8 vs 5 days). Not surprising, as that is why they had the procedure.
90% of embolized kids had an ileus vs 2% of those not embolized, and they took longer to resume regular diet (5 vs 2 days)
Respiratory rate and blood pressure were higher on days 3 and 4 in the embolized group, as was the temperature on day 5 (? see below)
Pain was higher on day 5 in the embolized group (? see below again)

Bottom line: Sorry, but I’m not convinced. Yes, I have observed increased pain and temperature elevations in patients who have been embolized. Some have also had an ileus, but it’s difficult to say if that’s from the procedure or other injuries. And this very small series just doesn’t have enough power to convince me of any clinically significant differences in injured children.

Look at the results above. “Significant” differences were only identified on a few select days, but not on the same days across charts. And although the authors may have demonstrated statistical differences, are they clinically relevant? Is a respiratory rate of 22 different from 18? A temp of 37.8 vs 37.2? I don’t think so. And length of stay does not reveal anything because the time in the ICU or hospital is completely dependent on the whims of the surgeon.

I agree that post-embolization syndrome exists in cancer patients. But the findings in trauma patients are too nondescript. They just don’t stand out well enough on their own for me to consider them a real syndrome. As a trauma professional, be aware that your patient probably will experience more pain over the affected organ for a few days, and they will be slow to resume their diet. But other than supportive care and patience, nothing special need be done.

Related posts:

Reference: Transarterial embolization in children with blunt splenic injury
results in postembolization syndrome: A matched
case-control study. J Trauma 73(6):1558-1563, 2012.

Abdomen, Complications

Consequences Of Embolizing Renal Injuries

March 13, 2018 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

In my last post, I noted that nonoperative management is the norm for dealing with high grade renal injuries. One of the possible options, angioembolization, was relatively infrequently used at only 6% of the time.

For management of other organs like the spleen, there are several angioembolization options. Depending on the type and severity of injury, selective (partial) or nonselective (main splenic artery) embolization can be carried out. For the liver, only selective embolization can be used. But what about the kidney?

Are there consequences of nonselective renal embolization? Or should we always strive for selective control? The urology group of the University of Tennessee – Knoxville published a series of papers on their experience using embolization in patients with the most severe injuries (Grade 5). They retrospectively examined just over 3 years of admissions with this injury. Numbers were very small (6 men, 3 women).

But they also published a second paper, extending the review dates to capture one more male patient. And they followed this group for 1.5 to 5 years (mean 2.5 years) to determine if any delayed complications surfaced.

Here are the factoids:

Seven patients underwent full, nonselective embolization, and the other three had “super selective” embolization
All patients had control of bleeding without surgical intervention
Followup CT imaging showed no persistent extravasation or expanding hematoma
No patient developed complications, such as a retroperitoneal abscess, prolonged fever, or hypertension while in the hospital or during short-term followup
Most patients showed a very small increase in serum creatinine (mean 0.04), but one patient increased from 1.1 to 1.7
On longer term followup, one patient, age 51, developed hypertension 10 months after his injury. It is not possible to determine whether he was one of the 20% of older adults who develop hypertension, or whether it was due to the procedure. it was well-controlled with a single antihypertensive med.
None developed altered renal function, stones, chronic pain, fistula, or pseudoaneurysm

Bottom line: Obviously, the data is very limited with only 10 patients. However, it is very interesting to note that the majority of these patients underwent nonselective embolization of the renal artery without any adverse event. The one case of hypertension occurred with nonselective embolization, although I have seen several case reports where this occurs with selective embolization as well.

It is now well-accepted that high-grade renal injury can and should be managed nonoperatively if the patient’s hemodynamic status is reasonable. I recommend a trip to interventional radiology if the patient has active extravasation or a high-grade (Grade 4 or 5) injury, as these patients are at risk for loss of the entire kidney otherwise. Selective embolization can be attempted first, but don’t be shy to take out the entire organ if need be.

References:

Percutaneous embolization for the management of Grade 5 renal trauma in hemodynamically unstable patients: initial experience. J Urology 181:1737-1741, 2008.
Intermediate-term follow-up of patients treated with percutaneous embolization for Grade 5 blunt renal trauma. J Trauma 69(2):468-470, 2010.

Abdomen

Contemporary Management Of Renal Injuries

March 12, 2018 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

A synopsis of contemporary management of renal injury was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma last year. The Genito-Urinary Trauma Study Group (GUTS [groan!]) prospectively collected data on high-grade (grades 3-5) renal injuries from 14 Level I trauma centers over a 14 year period.

Here are some factoids from the article:

Expectant management (nonoperative or minimally invasive angio/stenting/drainage) was the norm, with 80% of these high-grade injuries dealt with in this manner
Only 6% of patients undergoing minimally invasive treatment underwent angioembolization
As expected, the higher the grade, the more likely the kidney would be removed (Grade 4 = 15%, Grade 5 = 62%)
Once operative management was performed, the nephrectomy rate escalated to 67%
Nephrectomy was more common in patients with penetrating trauma (60%)

Bottom line: Nonoperative management of renal injuries has long been the norm. This more recent review confirms it. Once the abdomen is opened, the chance of losing the entire kidney skyrockets. Expectant management (repeat exam and labs) is very common, and very successful.

Angiography is an important adjunct, but was not used very commonly in this study. Perhaps the surgeons were concerned about complications from embolizing part or all of the kidney? I’ll discuss the consequences of this in my next post.

Reference: Contemporary management of high-grade renal trauma: Results from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Genitourinary Trauma study. J Trauma 84(3):418-425, 2018.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog