Category Archives: Technique

2 Ways To Perform A Pericardial Window For Trauma: Part 2 With Video!

January 22, 2020 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

In my last post, I reviewed the classic, “old-timey” subxyphoid approach to the pericardial window procedure for trauma. Today, I’ll describe the operative approach if you are already in the abdomen managing injuries there.

The same considerations apply to these patients in deciding to perform the window. Either there is a suspicion of actual pericardial tamponade based on physiology or diagnostic imaging, or an injury has been noted in proximity to the heart that raises that suspicion.

If you are already exploring the abdomen, the procedure is much simpler. The instruments required are already in your laparotomy setup:

Two toothed forceps
Tissue (Metzenbaum) scissors

First, and most importantly, the upper abdomen must be evacuated of all blood. This is critically important since a positive window is solely determined by the presence of blood in the pericardial fluid. If it is contaminated with blood as it flows into the peritoneal cavity, a false positive may result leading to an unneeded thoracotomy or sternotomy.

The midline incision must extend to the xiphoid process in order to get adequate exposure of the diaphragm. The left lobe of the liver is retracted downwards by your assistant, and the two of you can then grasp an area of the pericardial portion of the diaphragm with the toothed forceps. As it is tented away from the heart, the scissors are used to dissect through both the diaphragm and pericardium. Although some use cautery for this, I’m a weenie using electricity near the heart.

The diaphragm is thick, so expect to cut through several mm of tissue before you see pericardial fluid. Watch the color of the fluid carefully. If it is the least bit blood tinged, the result is positive. And be sure to watch for 15-30 seconds. Sometimes the initial fluid is amber, but it becomes bloody as more is drained.

Bloody fluid equals positive result. This means that a thoracic procedure is indicated to evaluate the heart and repair the injury. The choice of sternotomy vs thoracotomy is determined by mechanism, foreign body trajectory, and suspected area of injury on the heart.

If the result is negative, you may close the hole with your suture of choice. If the abdomen is contaminated from a bowel injury, I recommend you use the traditional subxiphoid approach separate from the laparotomy incision to avoid contaminating the pericardial sac.

Here’s a YouTube video of a transdiaphragmatic window created laparoscopically. Since abdominal explorations for major trauma seldom lend themselves to laparoscopy, don’t get any ideas from watching this!

Technique

2 Ways To Perform A Pericardial Window For Trauma: Part 1 with Video!

January 20, 2020 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

In this two-part post, I’ll describe two ways to perform a pericardial window for trauma. The pericardial window should be considered in any trauma patient who has one of the following:

A suspected diagnosis of pericardial tamponade. These patients do not yet have classic signs and symptoms. If they did, a thoracotomy or sternotomy is in order, not a window. But they do have a mechanism that could produce bleeding into the pericardial sac, and a positive imaging study. Typically, this study is a FAST exam of the heart. Occasionally, pericardial fluid may be seen on chest CT. This is uncommon but significant when detected.
An injury in proximity to the heart that is of concern for cardiac injury with a negative or indeterminant FAST. These are typically penetrating injuries so close to the heart that it’s hard to believe it wasn’t injured. If the FAST is not helpful, a window will make the definitive diagnosis.

Pericardial window is a very invasive procedure. For trauma, it is usually performed in the operating room and requires general anesthesia. It could be performed in the ED if the patient is already intubated and sedated.

There are two ways to perform this procedure. Today, I’ll discuss the old-timey subxiphoid approach. The equipment required is minimal:

Scalpel
Tissue (Metzenbaum) scissors
Once or two toothed forceps
Your finger
Good lighting

A 4-8 cm incision is made extending from the top of the xiphoid, extending about 4 cm down onto the abdominal midline. Enter the retrosternal space with your finger, and head to the heart. Usually, some fatty tissue must be bluntly dissected out of the way. Note: the heart is frequently further away than you think!

Sweep the fat out of the way, exposing the pericardium. Grasp the pericardium with the toothed forceps and tent it away from the heart. Use the Metzenbaum scissors to incise the pericardium immediately adjacent to the forceps. If this is difficult, then have an assistant grasp the pericardium with another pair so a short line of pericardium is elevated. (Note: sometimes having a second set of forceps in the incision makes it too difficult to see, which is why I prefer the single forceps technique).

Make sure that the wound is bloodless when you incise the pericardium! There is always at least a small amount of pericardial fluid that will squirt out, and you are looking at its color. If it is anything but amber, you have a positive result. If you have a bloody field that contaminates the fluid, a false positive diagnosis could occur leading to an unnecessary thoracotomy.

If the window is positive, cover the wound and head immediately to the OR if your’re not already there. Your patient has a cardiac injury until proven otherwise. If negative, then close the skin wound with your sutures / staples of choice. Do not attempt to close the tiny pericardial hole!

Here’s a video that shows the basic technique. The procedure depicted is being performed for non-trauma, so the operator takes his time. He has the luxury of dissecting and exposing the field well. But in trauma, we don’t usually have time to resect the xiphoid or take 10 minutes to dissect out the field.

In my next post, I’ll discuss the technique that is used if you already find yourself in the abdomen when a cardiac injury is suspected.

Complications, Technique

Retained Hemothorax Part 1: Lytics

July 25, 2019 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Hemothorax is a common complication of chest trauma, occurring in about one third of cases. It is commonly treated with a chest tube, which usually takes care of the problem. But in a few cases some blood remains, which can result in an entrapped lung or empyema.

There are several management options. Historically, these patients underwent thoracotomy to peel out the fibrinous collection stuck to lung and chest wall. This has given way to the more humane VATS procedure (video assisted thoracoscopic surgery) which accomplishes the same thing using a scope. In some cases, another tube can be inserted, sometimes under CT guidance, to try to drain the blood.

So what about lytics? It’s fibrin, right? So why not just dissolve it with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)? There have been very few studies published over the years. The most recent was in 2014. I’ll review it today, and another tomorrow. Finally, I’ll give you my thoughts on the best way to deal with retained hemothorax.

Here are the factoids:

This was a single center, retrospective review of data from 1.5 years beginning in 2009
A total of seven patients were identified, and most had hemothorax due to rib fractures. Three presented immediately after their injury, 4 were delayed.
Median time from injury to chest tube placement was 11 days
Median time the chest tube was in place was 13 days, with an average hospital stay of 14 days
Patients received 1 to 5 treatments, averaging 24mg per dose
There was one death in the group, unrelated to TPA treatment
No patient “required” VATS, but one underwent thoracotomy, which turned out to be for a malignancy

Bottom line: The authors conclude that tPA use for busting retained hemothorax is both safe and effective. Really? With only seven patients? The biggest problem with this study is that it uses old, retrospective data. We have no idea why these patients were selected for tPA in this 5-year old cohort of patients. Why did it take so long to put in chest tubes? Why did the chest tubes stay in so long? Maybe this is why they were in the hospital so long?

Plus, tPA is expensive. A 100mg vial runs about $6000. Does repeatedly using an expensive drug and keeping a patient in the hospital an extra week or so make financial sense? So it better work damn well, and this small series doesn’t demonstrate that.

Tomorrow, I’ll look at the next most recent paper on the topic, from way back in 2004.

Reference: Evaluation of chest tube administration of tissue plasminogen activator to treat retained hemothorax. Am J Surg 267(6):960-963, 2014.

Technique

By Request: Submental Intubation

June 20, 2019 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

I keep getting requests regarding this technique, so I’m reposting this updated article today and tomorrow.

Here’s one of the weirder procedures I’ve seen in some time. Imagine that you need a definitive airway, but you can’t use the face for some reason (mouth or nose). The usual choice would be a tracheostomy, right? But what if you only need it for a few days? Typically, once placed, trachs must be kept for a few weeks before decannulation is safe.

Enter submental intubation. This technique involves passing an endotracheal tube through the anterior floor of the mouth, and then down the airway. This leaves the facial bones, mandible, and skull base untouched.

tumblr_inline_mvds1c14ye1qa4rug1

The technique is straightforward:

After initially intubating the patient orotracheally, a 1.5cm incision is created just off the midline in the submental area under the chin.
Using a hemostat, all layers are penetrated, entering the oropharynx just lateral to the tongue.
A 1.5cm incision is then made at the puncture site, parallel to the gum line of the lower teeth.
The ET tube is removed from the ventilator circuit, and the connector at the proximal end of the tube is removed.
The hemostat is placed through the chin incision again. The proximal end of the ET tube is curled into the oropharynx and grasped with the hemostat, then pulled out through the skin under the chin, leaving the distal (balloon) end in the trachea.
The connector is reinserted, and the tube is then hooked up to the anesthesia circuit again.
The tube is then secured using a stitch under the chin.

After a final position check, the surgical procedure can commence. Cool!

There are a number of variations on this technique, so you may encounter slightly different descriptions. The tube can be pulled at the end of the procedure, or left for a few days to ensure safe extubation, if needed.

tumblr_inline_mvdsm0zd8b1qa4rug1

A small series of 10 patients undergoing this technique was reviewed, and there were no short or long term problems. Scarring under the chin was acceptable, and was probably less noticeable than a trach scar.

Bottom line: This is a unique and creative method for intubating patients with very short-term airway needs while their facial fractures are being fixed. Brilliant idea!

Tomorrow: Submental intubation – the video!

Reference: Submental intubation in patients with panfacial fractures: a prospective study. Indian J Anaesth 55(3):299-304, 2011.

Photo source: internet

Technique

Update: The Rectal Exam In Trauma Continues to “Pass”?

June 19, 2019 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

This topic continues to come up from time to time. I still see trauma programs that perform the good, old-fashioned digital rectal exam on nearly every trauma patient. But is it really necessary?

In the not so distant past, it was standard operating procedure to perform a digital rectal exam in all major trauma patients. The belief had always been that valuable information about blood in the GI tract, the status of the urethra, and the neuro exam (rectal tone) could be gleaned from this exam.

Unfortunately, a finger in the bum also serves to antagonize or even further traumatize some patients, especially those who may be intoxicated to some degree. On a number of occasions I have seen calm patients become so agitated by the rectal exam that they required intubation for control.

So is it really necessary? A study in 2001 conducted over a 6 month period (1) showed that the rectal exam influenced management in only 1.2% of cases. The authors felt that there was some utility in 3 special cases:

Spinal cord injury – looking for sacral sparing
Pelvic fracture – looking for bone shards protruding into the rectum
Penetrating abdominal trauma – looking for gross blood

A more recent 2005 study (2) was also critical of the rectal exam and found that using “other clinical indicators” (physical exam and other diagnostic study information) was at least equivalent, changing management only 4% of the time. They concurred with the first two indications above as well.

And what is the best patient position for the exam? I continue to see people try to do it when the patient is in the logroll position! This is substandard for two reasons:

It is not a stable position, and no one likes a finger in their butt. Awake patients will squirm and withdraw, defeating any attempt at spinal precautions.
It’s not ideal for the examiner, either. Access to the male prostate is subpar because the examiner’s finger is generally pointed posteriorly, away from this organ. In order to rotate anteriorly, the examiner must spin around, putting “reverse English” (billiards reference) on their arm.

To do a proper rectal exam when indicated, make sure the patient is supine, warn them that you are going to do it, and use the same hand as the side of the patient you are standing on. Right side, right hand to avoid the “reverse English” thing again.

Bottom line: For most major trauma patients, the rectal exam is not worth the patient aggravation it causes. I still recommend it for the 3 special cases listed above, however, as there are no equivalent and effective exams for these potentially serious patient problems. And remember, DON’T do it while the patient is in the logroll position.

References:
1. Porter, Urcic. Am Surg. 2001 May;67(5):438-41.
2. Esposito et al. J Trauma. 2005 Dec;59(6):1314-9.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog