Tag Archives: OR

Equipment

Why Use A Hybrid OR For Trauma?

Leave a comment

Trauma is a surgical disease, and specifically, a disease of bleeding. So many of the tools and processes we have developed for its management revolve around the control of hemorrhage.

When a major trauma patient arrives in the resuscitation room, the initial management involves rapid assessment and correction of life-threatening conditions. Recognition of bleeding is paramount. A rapid decision must be made about the source of hemorrhage and the best way to control it.

Traditionally, bleeding control has been relegated to the operating room. Body cavities are opened as appropriate, and exsanguination is controlled by clamping, repairing, and/or suturing.

However, some body regions are much more challenging. The most notable is the pelvis, and specifically, the unstable pelvis. In the old days, after wrapping or applying an external fixator, the best we could do was to ligate the internal iliac arteries bilaterally and hope the bleeding would slow down sufficiently (it never really stopped) so that internal packing might have a chance.

As the use of interventional radiography grew in trauma, it became possible to occlude the internal iliacs noninvasively. Then, the radiologists became skilled enough to selectively identify and embolize more distal bleeding vessels that would dramatically shut down pelvic bleeding.

But this introduced a conundrum. OR vs IR? Where to go after the trauma bay? I’ve long said that the only place an unstable trauma patient can go is to the OR. Not CT, and certainly not the radiology department.

Only the OR, because that’s the only place that something can actually be done about the bleeding. However, that’s not entirely true now.

Here’s the traditional algorithm for a patient with hemorrhage from pelvic fractures:

They go to the operating room or interventional radiology. If they start in the operating room and can be stabilized (think external fixation and/or preperitoneal packing), then they might be able to be packaged and taken to IR for embolization. Likewise, if they were initially stable enough to go to IR but crashed there, then they must immediately be taken to OR.

But what if you could do both in one room with interventional radiology capabilities and a full resuscitation team with surgical instruments?! That’s the beauty of the hybrid room! It is entirely possible to do two, three, and maybe more cases on the same patient in the same room. Hence, the hybrid OR.

Next post: Is the hybrid OR for trauma useful?

Equipment

The Hybrid OR For Trauma

Leave a comment

A hybrid operating room is a special OR suite that allows advanced imaging to be carried out simultaneously with one or more additional operative procedures. It’s that simple. It contains specialized imaging equipment, including fluoroscopy and infusion equipment for radiographic dye administration. Some also contain CT and/or MRI capabilities, but the shielding required for these makes them rare. It is generally stocked with a variety of endovascular

devices and supplies. The usual anesthesia circuits are available, as are selected surgical packs, typically related to vascular and CV surgery.

These suites are typically large and can easily accommodate multiple operating teams. However, they are costly in several ways.

First, they take up a great deal of space. Many have the square footage of two or more standard operating rooms. Initial construction costs are very high, as are remodeling and maintenance costs. They can also tax the hospital engineering infrastructure, from electrical to plumbing to ventilation.

However, if a hybrid room is available, it can deliver significant benefits to the hospital and patient care. Intraoperative imaging can provide immediate quality assurance, and patients can undergo more complex procedures and enjoy a shorter length of stay.

Next post: Why use a hybrid room for trauma?

Resuscitation

Emergency Intubation: ED or OR?

Leave a comment

Decades ago, intubation of trauma patients only took place in the operating room, and only anesthesiologists performed it. As the discipline of Emergency Medicine came into being in the 1980s, emergency physicians became skilled in this procedure. Occasional trauma intubations had to occur in the ED, and typically anesthesia was called for it.

As the emergency physicians became more comfortable and improved their skills, they also started intubating. I distinctly remember a paper from the time (which I unfortunately do not have a reference to) stating that ED and OR intubation were equally safe if the ED intubation field could be made to look like the OR.  This thinking has become commonplace, and in most trauma centers, intubation is now provided nearly exclusively by emergency physicians. Anesthesia is called only for extremely difficult cases.

But we have all been involved in cases where the patient is severely injured, usually hypotensive, and crashes and burns during or immediately after the procedure. This is likely due to a combination of loss of sympathetic tone due to the drugs administered, increased vagal tone from instrumenting the airway, and hypovolemia.

Authors from the University of Wisconsin, University of Pennsylvania, and Johns Hopkins hypothesized that ED intubation for patients requiring urgent operation for hemorrhage control was associated with adverse outcomes. They performed a three-year registry study from the National Trauma Program Databank of patients requiring laparotomy for hemorrhage control within 60 minutes of arrival. They excluded the dead and nearly dead (DOA, ED thoracotomy) and patients with immediate indications for intubation (head, neck, or facial trauma). They compared mortality, ED dwell time, blood transfusions, and major complications between patients with ED vs. OR intubation.

Here are the factoids:

  • Nearly 10,000 patients from 253 Level I or II trauma centers were included in the study
  • About 20% of patients underwent intubation in the ED, and they were more likely to have blunt trauma mechanism and higher ISS (22 vs. 17)
  • Initial vital signs were not clinically significant between the ED and OR groups
  • Mortality in the ED group was significantly higher (17% vs. 7%), the ED dwell time was significantly longer ( 31 vs. 22 minutes), required significantly more blood transfusion (6 vs. 4 units), and had a significantly higher risk of major complications (specifically cardiac arrest, AKI, and ARDS)
  • There was a wide variation in the rate of ED intubation across all the hospitals. Centers with the highest rate of ED intubations were 5x more likely to intubate than the lowest rate centers. The patient case mix could not explain this difference.
  • The lower ED intubation rate hospitals tended to be nonprofit Level I university hospitals
  • Centers with high levels of hemorrhage control surgery were more likely to intubate in the OR

Bottom line: From a purely technical perspective, the old dogma about patient location not making a difference is basically true. The process of getting an airway safely into the patient and secured is equivalent wherever it is done as long as the lighting, equipment, and skill levels are equivalent. 

But when one considers the physiologic aftermath of this process, things are obviously more nuanced. Actively bleeding patients are extremely challenged, down to their organ and cellular levels. Disrupting their normal compensatory mechanisms is clearly associated with a significant downside. 

We should clearly distinguish the patient who needs an airway for airway’s sake or cerebral protection from one who needs to be in the OR for bleeding control. Other papers have shown that mortality increases as each minute ticks by in the hemorrhaging patient. Trauma programs need to monitor these patients and do a performance improvement deep dive into all trauma patients intubated in the ED to ensure appropriate decision-making.

Reference: Emergency Department Versus Operating Room Intubation of Patients Undergoing Immediate Hemorrhage Control Surgery. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003907