Is Time of the Essence: A Retrospective Analysis of Operating Room Procedure Length for First Phase Damage Control Trauma Surgery

IF 0.1 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Alison A Smith, L. Hakki, Jessica K. Friedman, R. Schroll, Chrissy Guidry, Patrick R. McGrew, D. Tatum, J. Duchesne
{"title":"Is Time of the Essence: A Retrospective Analysis of Operating Room Procedure Length for First Phase Damage Control Trauma Surgery","authors":"Alison A Smith, L. Hakki, Jessica K. Friedman, R. Schroll, Chrissy Guidry, Patrick R. McGrew, D. Tatum, J. Duchesne","doi":"10.26676/jevtm.v3i3.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:The concept of Damage Control Surgery (DCS) consists of a truncated surgical intervention with main focus on hemorrhage and contamination control. Traditionally,DCS involves limiting operating room (OR) time for patients with multiple life-threatening injuries and coagulopathy who are reaching physiologic exhaustion. However, in the modern era of hemostatic resuscitation, there is a paucity of evidence to support a survival benefit with shorter OR times. The objective of this study was to determine the practice habits of trauma surgeons in the modern era of DCS and to determine if operation length affects mortality in trauma patients with abdominal injuries. \nMethods:An 8-year retrospective review of consecutive adult patients with DCSfor penetrating abdominal trauma at a Level I trauma center was conducted. Patient demographics, injury severity score (ISS), and penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) scores were obtained. Average operating room times for initial DCS were determined. Patient outcomes were analyzed with a t-test for univariate analysis and a Cox proportional hazard ratio modeling was used to predict factors for survival.  \nResults:A total of 193 patients were included in the study.  The overall patient mortality was 14.0% (n=27/193). Median OR time was 157 minutes (range, 59-573 min). Patients were stratified into short OR group (SHORT, n=95) and long OR group (LORT, n=98) based on the median operative time. Only one patient had an initial DCL less than 60 minutes.  The SHORT group received more blood transfusions (52.6% vs. 35.7%, p=0.02) in the ICU. Average operative room time was almost twice as long in the LORT group (214.6+6.2 vs. 121.4+2.6 minutes, p<0.0001). The average hospital length of stay (22.8+2.3 vs. 31.0+3.5 days, p=0.05) and ICU length of stay (10.6+1.2 vs. 12.6+1.4 days, p=0.28) were both lower in the LORT group compared to the SHORT group. The SHORT group had 22 patients with unplanned return to the OR compared to 3 in the LORT group (p<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, OR time was not an independent risk factor for mortality (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.98-1.0, p=0.48). \nConclusions: Modern damage control practices should focus on early and effective surgical hemorrhage control in combination with effective intra-op hemostatic resuscitation efforts and not on how time limitations. These findings suggest that OR time restrictions in the era of effective hemostatic resuscitation in combination with DCS does not impact mortality.","PeriodicalId":41233,"journal":{"name":"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of EndoVascular Resuscitation and Trauma Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26676/jevtm.v3i3.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:The concept of Damage Control Surgery (DCS) consists of a truncated surgical intervention with main focus on hemorrhage and contamination control. Traditionally,DCS involves limiting operating room (OR) time for patients with multiple life-threatening injuries and coagulopathy who are reaching physiologic exhaustion. However, in the modern era of hemostatic resuscitation, there is a paucity of evidence to support a survival benefit with shorter OR times. The objective of this study was to determine the practice habits of trauma surgeons in the modern era of DCS and to determine if operation length affects mortality in trauma patients with abdominal injuries. Methods:An 8-year retrospective review of consecutive adult patients with DCSfor penetrating abdominal trauma at a Level I trauma center was conducted. Patient demographics, injury severity score (ISS), and penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) scores were obtained. Average operating room times for initial DCS were determined. Patient outcomes were analyzed with a t-test for univariate analysis and a Cox proportional hazard ratio modeling was used to predict factors for survival.  Results:A total of 193 patients were included in the study.  The overall patient mortality was 14.0% (n=27/193). Median OR time was 157 minutes (range, 59-573 min). Patients were stratified into short OR group (SHORT, n=95) and long OR group (LORT, n=98) based on the median operative time. Only one patient had an initial DCL less than 60 minutes.  The SHORT group received more blood transfusions (52.6% vs. 35.7%, p=0.02) in the ICU. Average operative room time was almost twice as long in the LORT group (214.6+6.2 vs. 121.4+2.6 minutes, p<0.0001). The average hospital length of stay (22.8+2.3 vs. 31.0+3.5 days, p=0.05) and ICU length of stay (10.6+1.2 vs. 12.6+1.4 days, p=0.28) were both lower in the LORT group compared to the SHORT group. The SHORT group had 22 patients with unplanned return to the OR compared to 3 in the LORT group (p<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, OR time was not an independent risk factor for mortality (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.98-1.0, p=0.48). Conclusions: Modern damage control practices should focus on early and effective surgical hemorrhage control in combination with effective intra-op hemostatic resuscitation efforts and not on how time limitations. These findings suggest that OR time restrictions in the era of effective hemostatic resuscitation in combination with DCS does not impact mortality.
时间是最重要的吗:对一期损伤控制创伤手术的手术室程序长度的回顾性分析
背景:损伤控制外科(DCS)的概念包括截断的外科干预,主要关注出血和污染控制。传统上,DCS涉及限制多处危及生命的损伤和凝血障碍患者的手术室(OR)时间,这些患者正处于生理衰竭状态。然而,在止血复苏的现代,缺乏证据支持手术时间更短的生存益处。本研究的目的是确定现代DCS时代创伤外科医生的实践习惯,并确定手术时间是否会影响腹部损伤创伤患者的死亡率。方法:对一级创伤中心连续8年的成人DCS穿透性腹部创伤患者进行回顾性分析。获得患者人口统计学、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)和穿透性腹部创伤指数(PATI)评分。确定了初始DCS的平均手术室时间。采用t检验进行单变量分析,并采用Cox比例风险比模型预测生存因素。结果:共有193名患者被纳入研究。患者总死亡率为14.0%(n=27/193)。中位OR时间为157分钟(范围为59-573分钟)。根据中位手术时间将患者分为短OR组(short,n=95)和长OR组(LORT,n=98)。只有一名患者的首次DCL不到60分钟。SHORT组在ICU接受了更多的输血(52.6%对35.7%,p=0.02)。LORT组的平均手术室时间几乎是SHORT组的两倍(214.6+6.2 vs.121.4+2.6分钟,p<0.0001)。与SHORT组相比,LORT组平均住院时间(22.8+2.3 vs.31.0+3.5天,p=0.05)和ICU住院时间(10.6+1.2vs.12.6+1.4天,p=0.28)均较低。SHORT组有22名患者意外返回OR,而LORT组有3名患者(p<0.0001),OR时间不是死亡率的独立危险因素(OR 1.0,95%CI 0.98-1.0,p=0.48)。结论:现代损伤控制实践应关注早期有效的手术出血控制,并结合有效的术中止血复苏,而不是时间限制。这些发现表明,在有效止血复苏结合DCS的时代,OR时间限制不会影响死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书