Comparison of abdominal damage control surgery in combat versus civilian trauma

Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and Acute Care Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.96). 07/2010; 69 Suppl 1:S168-74. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e45cef
Source: PubMed


The majority of individuals who perform damage control surgery in the military arena are trained in civilian venues. Therefore, it is important to compare and contrast damage control performed in civilian and military settings. In contrast to civilian trauma, which is primarily caused by blunt injury and addressed at one or two surgical facilities, combat casualties primarily sustain explosion-related injuries and undergo treatment at multiple levels of care across continents. We aimed to compare patients undergoing abdominal damage control surgery across these two very different settings.
Parallel retrospective reviews were conducted over 2 years (2005-2006) in a combat setting and at a US Level I trauma center. Patients were examined during the first 7 days after injury.
The civilian population (CP) was older (40 vs. 23; p < 0.01) with a higher injury severity score (35 vs. 27; p < 0.02). The CP experienced greater blunt injury than the military population (MP) (83 vs. 4%; p < 0.01). Explosion-related injury was only present in the MP (64%). At baseline, the CP presented with lower systolic blood pressure (108 vs. 126) and larger base deficit (9.8 vs. 6.5; p < 0.05). The MP underwent more surgeries (3.5 vs. 2.9; p = 0.02) with similar rates of fascial closure (48.7% vs. 70.0%; p = 0.11). Complication rates were similar between the CP and the MP (43% vs. 58%, respectively; p = 0.14).
Military and civilian trauma patients who undergo damage control surgery experience similar fascial closure rates despite differing demographics and widely disparate mechanisms of injury. The MP undergoes a greater number of procedures than the CP, but complication rates do not differ between the groups.

7 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Civilian liver trauma is generally sustained by blunt injury, with management strategies increasingly focusing on selective non-operative strategies and endovascular intervention. Military liver trauma is more often ballistic in nature and almost always requiring operative intervention. This article reviews established and evolving surgical techniques in the operative management of liver trauma.
    Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps 06/2011; 157(2):136-144. DOI:10.1136/jramc-157-02-03 · 0.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Divergent injury patterns may indicate the need for differing strategies in combat and civilian trauma patients. This study aims to compare outcomes of colon injury management in these two populations. Parallel retrospective reviews were conducted comparing warfighters (n = 59) injured downrange and subsequently transferred to the United States with civilians (n = 30) treated at a United States Level I trauma center. Patient characteristics, mechanisms of injury, treatment course, and complications were compared. The civilian (CP) and military (MP) populations did not differ in Injury Severity Score (MP 20 vs CP 26; P = 0.41). The MP experienced primarily blast injuries (51%) as opposed to blunt trauma (70%; P < 0.01) in the CP. The site of colon injury did not differ between groups (P = 0.15). Initial management was via primary repair (53%) and resection and anastomosis (27%) in the CP versus colostomy creation (47%) and stapled ends (32%) in the MP (P < 0.001). Ultimately, the CP and MP experienced equivalent continuity rates (90%). Overall complications (MP 68% vs CP 53%; P = 0.18) and mortality (MP 3% vs CP 3%; P = 0.99) did not differ between the two groups. The CP and MP experience different mechanisms and initial management of colon injury. Ultimately, continuity is restored in the majority of both populations.
    The American surgeon 12/2011; 77(12):1685-91. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.06.054 · 0.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate factors that are predictive of delayed abdominal closure in patients injured during military conflict. Design, setting, and patients: Seventy-one patients managed with an open abdomen were identified from records at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center from 2005 and 2006. Follow-up data were available from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Records were reviewed through all echelons of care. Ordinal logistic regression was used to predict delayed abdominal closure. Results: Patients sustained injury from blunt (n = 2), penetrating (n = 30), and blast (n = 39) mechanisms. The median Injury Severity Score was 25 (interquartile range, 17-34). Abdominal injury was observed in 85% of patients, and 48% underwent a massive transfusion. The median time to transfer to the United States was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 4.3-6.8 days). Abdomens were definitively closed downrange (11%), at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (33%), or at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (56%). The median time until abdominal closure was 13 days (interquartile range, 4-40 days) in 2005 compared with 4 days (interquartile range, 1-14.5 days) in 2006 (P = .02). The multivariate model identified massive transfusion (odds ratio, 3.9), presence of complications (odds ratio, 5.1), and an injury date in 2005 (odds ratio, 3.4) as independently predictive variables for later abdominal closure. Conclusions: Massive transfusion, occurrence of complications, and earlier injury date were predictive of delayed abdominal closure in casualties managed with an open abdomen. These data suggest an evolving approach to the management of severely injured combat casualties that involves earlier abdominal closure.
    Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) 09/2012; 148(1):1-6. DOI:10.1001/2013.jamasurg.4 · 4.93 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications