Category Archives: Procedures

Procedures, Thorax

EAST 2017 #7: Pigtail vs Chest Tube – Does Size Matter?

Leave a comment

I’ve been somewhat old school when it comes to chest tubes. Unlike some, I don’t believe that you have any control of where a chest tube goes if you are placing it in a closed chest. Only in the OR with an open one. And I’ve got plenty of x-rays to prove it.

And I used to think that chest tube size mattered when dealing with hemothorax. In theory, you need a big tube to get clots out, right?

Well, maybe not! The trauma group at the University of Arizona Tucson has previously done work on using 14 French pigtail catheters in lieu of a full-size tube. They will be presenting their extended experience with this concept at EAST 2017.

They have maintained a prospectively collected database of information on trauma patients with chest tubes for many years. This study focused only on those who had blood in their chest, either hemothorax (HTX) or hemopneumothorax (HPTX). They also looked at trends in their selection of chest drain tubes.

Here are the factoids:

  • Nearly 500 patients were treated with a tube for HTX or HPTX during the 7 year study period, 2/3 with a chest tube and 1/3 with a pigtail
  • Pigtails had more fluid drain initially (430cc vs 300cc, significant), and 1 less treatment day (4 vs 5, also significant)
  • Failure rate and insertion-related complications were the same (about 22% and 6%, respectively)
  • The group found that their use of pigtails steadily and significantly increased over the years

Bottom line: I’m coming around. The literature does appear to be tilting toward smaller tubes, and this longer-term study helps confirm that. How can this be? Although this is speculation on my part, it probably has to do with the fact that any size tube will drain liquid blood. And probably no size of tube will successfully get all the clot out. 

And certainly, smaller tubes are much better tolerated and do not require the degree of sedation that a mega-tube does. The authors suggest that a multi-center trial should be carried out to confirm this. For my part, I’m going to review the literature we have to date and consider modifying my own chest tube policy (see links below).

Questions and comments for the authors/presenters:

  • Where did you typically insert the pigtails? Anterior chest or classic chest tube position? Was it consistent?
  • Was/is the selection of tube type an attending surgeon specific choice, or did you implement a policy to direct them?
  • Did patient injury pattern or body habitus have any part in tube selection?
  • What about removal failures? That is, how many had to have a tube replaced, and how many went on to require VATS or other surgical procedure for drainage?
  • I enjoyed this provocative paper!

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related posts:

Reference: A prospective study of 7-year experience of using percutaneous 14-French pigtail catheter for traumatic hemothorax at a Level I trauma – size still does not matter. Quick Shot #4, EAST 2017.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Procedures

Efficacy Of Preperitoneal Packing For Pelvic Fractures

Leave a comment

A multi-center trial published in 2015 showed an astounding 32% mortality rate for patients with shock from pelvic fracture. And as I continue to preach, going any place but the OR is dangerous for the patient. Unfortunately, it’s generally not feasible to operatively fix the pelvis acutely, and external fixation has limited impact on ongoing hemorrhage.

If the patient can be stabilized to some degree, interventional radiology can be very helpful. Unfortunately, access after hours involves some degree of time delay. Ideally, the team arrives in 30 minutes or less. But the patient may not be ready, so time to procedure may increase significantly.

So preperitoneal packing of the pelvis (PPP) has now become popular. Years ago, we tried to pack the pelvis from the inside (peritoneal cavity), but it never worked very well. You can push sponges deep into the pelvis as firmly as you want, but the intestines will not keep them from expanding back out of the pelvis.

PPP entails making a lower midline incision, but not entering the peritoneal cavity. A hand is then slid along the anterior surface of the peritoneum around the inside of the iliac wing. Sponges can then be pushed around toward the sacrum, applying direct pressure over bleeding fracture sites and the overlying tissues.

preperitoneal-packing

Image courtesy of ACSSurgery.com

But does it work? Denver Health performed an 11 year retrospective review of their experience with 2293 patients with pelvic fractures. They looked at time to intervention, blood product usage, and mortality.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 128 patients underwent PPP
  • Most were younger (mean age 43) and badly injured (mean ISS 48)
  • Median time from door to OR was 44 minutes
  • Patients received an average of 8 units of RBCs intraop, and an additional 3 units in the ensuing 24 hours
  • Overall mortality was 21% (27 of 128), but 9 (7%) were due to severe head injury

Bottom line: Compared to other published studies, time to “definitive management” with PPP was very short. Blood usage also dropped quickly after the procedure. Mortality seems to be much better than expected at about 13%. These results suggest that if you have to wait for angio, or your patient is too unstable to go there, run to the OR first to do some PPP.

And don’t forget these other important management tips:

  • If you see any posterior pelvic fracture on the initial pelvic x-ray, call for blood
  • If the blood pressure softens at any point activate your massive transfusion protocol
  • Apply a binder, especially for open book type fractures
  • Always get a CT in stable patients to help your orthopedic surgeons plan, and to identify contrast blushes
  • If the patient has to go to OR first to stabilize them, consider angio afterwards. You’ll probably find something they can fix.
  • Think about using your hybrid OR!

Reference: Preperitoneal pelvic packing reduces mortality in patients with life-threatening hemorrhage due to unstable pelvic fractures. AAST 2016, Paper 32.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Procedures

Once Again: Leg Fasciotomy With Less Than Two Incisions

Leave a comment

It seems like this topic keeps on coming up! This is the second article I’ve seen this year that describes a variation on the single-incision leg fasciotomy. In the classic two-incision approach, the lateral incision gives access to the anterior and lateral compartments, and the medial incision to the posterior and deep posterior. See below.

The more “standard” single-incision approaches either go through (i.e. removes part of) or around, the fibula. In the diagram below, the arrows point to the access points into the anterior, lateral, posterior and deep posterior from top to bottom.

In the “new” variation described, the authors slide along the lateral edge of the tibia to get to the deep posterior compartment.

This approach requires stripping the tibialis

anterior muscle away from the tibia, which some orthopods may argue interferes with healing. And, as with the other single-incision technique, the procedure may take additional time.

Bottom line: I’m still not a big fan of single-incision fasciotomy. My main reason is that most surgeons are not as familiar with the technique. And patients who have a potentially limb threatening process are not the best to learn on. I have seen too many incomplete fasciotomies with persistent compartment syndrome in my career. 

So unless you are being mentored by someone who is well versed in the technique, use the two incision technique and use a cadaver to practice your single incision operation.

Reference:  A Single-Incision Fasciotomy for Compartment Syndrome
of the Lower Leg. J Ortho Surg 30(7):e252-e255, 2016.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Procedures

REBOA: The References

Leave a comment

Here are a few references for some of the significant work on REBOA. Be aware that new research is now being published every month! Good luck keeping up!

References:

1. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) as an adjunct for hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma 71(6):1869-1872, 2011.

2. A novel fluoroscopy-free, resuscitative endovascular aortic balloon occlusion system in a model of hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma 75(1):122-128, 2013.

3. Survival of severe blunt trauma patients treated with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta compared with propensity score-adjusted untreated patients. J Trauma 78(4):721-728, 2015.

4. Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. J Trauma 78(5):897-023, 2015.

5. The role of REBOA in the control of exsanguinating torso hemorrhage. J Trauma 78(5):1054-1058, 2015.

6. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Resuscitation 96:275-279, 2015.

Direct links to the REBOA series:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Procedures

REBOA Part 5: The Real Bottom Line

Leave a comment

We are now entering the “golden age” of REBOA. A number of small, single-institution studies are beginning to appear, most of which tout reasonably positive results. And enough articles are now available to even support a few authors seeking to publish review articles.

Yes, REBOA shows a great deal of promise. But there are a lot of details yet to be worked out. Here are some of the items on the REBOA “questions to answer” list:

  • What are the best indications (and contraindications) when considering this highly invasive technique? You will notice that I only listed general indications here. There is some agreement at the major REBOA centers in the US, but there are a lot of differences of opinion as well.
  • What kind of training is required to assure competence with this technique?
  • What kind of experience, supervision, performance standards should be required for credentialing?
  • What about the anatomic, physiologic, and metabolic complications of this technique?
  • How long can the catheter be left in place?
  • What kind of monitoring is required to assure limb and overall patient safety?
  • What about the inevitable technical improvements that are ongoing? In only a few years we have moved from 12 Fr catheters to 7 Fr. From guidewire systems to wireless ones. Expect numerous advancements that will reduce complications and improve survival.

Bottom line: This is a very exciting new technique. But we are still very early in the REBOA life cycle. Everybody wants to be doing the next great thing, but be careful! We are still working with a huge knowledge deficit, and additional published work is essential. If you are working outside of an established REBOA center, I highly recommend you do two things. First, get some training for this complicated technique (see page 1). And don’t let your experience go to waste. Design or join a good study that will contribute to the global knowledge base on REBOA.

Tomorrow: References (if you want to look this stuff up)

Direct links to the REBOA series:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email