Damage control in the abdomen and beyond
ABSTRACT Damage control is not a modern concept, but the application of this approach represents a new paradigm in surgery, borne out of a need to care for patients sustaining multiple high-energy injuries.
A Medline search was performed to locate English language articles relating to damage control procedures in trauma patients. The retrieved articles were manually cross-referenced, and additional academic and historical articles were identified.
Damage control surgery, sometimes known as 'damage limitation surgery' or 'abbreviated laparotomy', is best defined as creating a stable anatomical environment to prevent the patient from progressing to an unsalvageable metabolic state. Patients are more likely to die from metabolic failure than from failure to complete organ repairs. It is with this awareness that damage control surgery is performed, enabling the patient to maintain a sustainable physiological envelope.
- SourceAvailable from: Ray-Jade Chen
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Ten years later, Rotondo et al.  defined ''damage control'' as initial control of haemorrhage and contamination and followed by abdominal packing with rapid wound closure, planned for normal physiology recovery in the intensive care unit (ICU) and subsequent definitive re-exploration. To date, DCL has been widely accepted as a life saving procedure and could improve outcome in major abdominal trauma  . In 2000, Richardson et al.  proposed that the major reasons for the decrease in mortality for liver injury over the past 25 years were: (1) improved results with packing and reoperation, (2) use of TAE, (3) advances in operative techniques for major liver injuries, and (4) decrease in the number of hepatic venous injuries undergoing surgery. "
ABSTRACT: This retrospective study aimed to assess the clinical experience and outcome of damage control laparotomy with perihepatic packing in the management of blunt major liver injuries. From January 1998 to December 2006, 58 patients of blunt major liver injury, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) equal or greater than III, were operated with perihepatic packing at our institute. Demographic data, intra-operative findings, operative procedures, adjunctive managements and outcome were reviewed. To determine whether there was statistical difference between the survivor and non-survivor groups, data were compared by using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, either Pearson's chi-square test or with Yates continuity correction for contingency tables, and results were considered statistically significant if p<0.05. Of the 58 patients, 20 (35%) were classified as AAST-OIS grade III, 24 (41%) as grade IV, and 14 (24%) as grade V. At laparotomy, depending on the severity of injuries, all 58 patients underwent various liver-related procedures and perihepatic packing. The more frequent liver-related procedures included debridement hepatectomy (n=21), hepatorrhaphy (n=19), selective hepatic artery ligation (n=11) and 7 patients required post-laparotomy hepatic transarterial embolization. Of the 58 patients, 28 survived and 30 died with a 52% mortality rate. Of the 30 deaths, uncontrolled liver bleeding in 24-h caused 25 deaths and delayed sepsis caused residual 5 deaths. The mortality rate versus OIS was grade III: 30% (6/20), grade IV: 54% (13/24), and grade V: 79% (11/14), respectively. On univariate analysis, the significant predictors of mortality were OIS grade (p=0.019), prolonged initial prothrombin time (PT) (p=0.004), active partial thromboplastin time (APTT) (p<0.0001) and decreased platelet count (p=0.005). The mortality rate of surgical blunt major liver injuries remains high even with perihepatic packing. Since prolonged initial PT, APTT and decreased platelet count were associated with high risk of mortality, we advocate combination of damage control resuscitation with damage control laparotomy in these major liver injuries.Injury 09/2013; 45(1). DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2013.08.022 · 2.46 Impact Factor