Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial.
Journal
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery
ISSN: 2163-0763
Titre abrégé: J Trauma Acute Care Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101570622
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2023
01 07 2023
Historique:
medline:
23
6
2023
pubmed:
19
4
2023
entrez:
19
04
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur.
METHODS
A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy).
RESULTS
The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA.
CONCLUSION
Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37072889
doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003972
pii: 01586154-202307000-00022
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151-159Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Vaughan GD 3rd, Frazier OH, Graham DY, Mattox KL, Petmecky FF, Jordan GL Jr. The use of pyloric exclusion in the management of severe duodenal injuries. Am J Surg . 1977;134(6):785–790.
Buck JR, Sorensen VJ, Fath JJ, Horst HM, Obeid FN. Severe pancreatico-duodenal injuries: the effectiveness of pyloric exclusion with vagotomy. Am Surg . 1992;58(9):557–560; discussion 561.
Berne CJ, Donovan AJ, White EJ, Yellin AE. Duodenal “diverticulization” for duodenal and pancreatic injury. Am J Surg . 1974;127(5):503–507.
Stone HH, Fabian TC. Management of duodenal wounds. J Trauma . 1979;19(5):334–339.
Berne CJ, Donovan AJ, Hagen WE. Combined duodenal pancreatc trauma. The role of end-to-side gastrojejunostomy. Arch Surg . 1968;96(5):712–722.
Martin TD, Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Jordan GL Jr. Severe duodenal injuries. Treatment with pyloric exclusion and gastrojejunostomy. Arch Surg . 1983;118(5):631–635.
Asensio JA, Feliciano DV, Britt LD, Kerstein MD. Management of duodenal injuries. Curr Probl Surg . 1993;30(11):1023–1093.
Carrillo EH, Richardson JD, Miller FB. Evolution in the management of duodenal injuries. J Trauma . 1996;40(6):1037–1045; discussion 1045-6.
Mayberry J, Fabricant L, Anton A, Ham B, Schreiber M, Mullins R. Management of full-thickness duodenal laceration in the damage control era: evolution to primary repair without diversion or decompression. Am Surg . 2011;77(6):681–685.
Schroeppel TJ, Saleem K, Sharpe JP, Magnotti LJ, Weinberg JA, Fischer PE, et al. Penetrating duodenal trauma: a 19-year experience. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2016;80(3):461–465.
Cogbill TH, Moore EE, Feliciano DV, Hoyt DB, Jurkovich GJ, Morris JA, et al. Conservative management of duodenal trauma: a multicenter perspective. J Trauma . 1990;30(12):1469–1475.
DuBose JJ, Inaba K, Teixeira PGR, Shiflett A, Putty B, Green DJ, et al. Pyloric exclusion in the treatment of severe duodenal injuries: results from the National Trauma Data Bank. Am Surg . 2008;74(10):925–929.
Seamon MJ, Pieri PG, Fisher CA, Gaughan J, Santora TA, Pathak AS, et al. A ten-year retrospective review: does pyloric exclusion improve clinical outcome after penetrating duodenal and combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries? J Trauma . 2007;62(4):829–833.
Nassoura ZE, Ivatury RR, Simon RJ, Kihtir T, Stahl WM. A prospective reappraisal of primary repair of penetrating duodenal injuries. Am Surg . 1994;60(1):35–39.
Ivatury RR, Gaudino J, Ascer E, Nallathambi M, Ramirez-Schon G, Stahl WM. Treatment of penetrating duodenal injuries: primary repair vs. repair with decompressive enterostomy/serosal patch. J Trauma . 1985;25(4):337–341.
Choron RL, Efron D. Isolated and combined duodenal and pancreatic injuries: a review and update. Current Surgery Reports September 2018; 6:20.
Diggs LP, Gregory S, Choron RL. Review of traumatic duodenal injuries: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Am Surg . 2022.
Talving P, Nicol AJ, Navsaria PH. Civilian duodenal gunshot wounds: surgical management made simpler. World J Surg . 2006;30:488–494.
Bagaria D, Agarwal H, Jaiswal A, Katiyar A, Pandey S, Choudhary N, et al. Repair by primary closure of traumatic blunt duodenal injuries: simple is not always safe. J Surg Res . 2022;280:50–54.
Ordoñez C, Garcia A, Parra MW, Scavo D, Pino LF, Millan M, et al. Complex penetrating duodenal injuries: less is better. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2014;76(5):1177–1183.
Phillips B, Turco L, McDonald D, Mause A, Walters R. Penetrating injuries to the duodenum: an analysis of 879 patients from the National Trauma Data Bank, 2010 to 2014. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2017;83(5):810–817.
Ferrada P, Wolfe L, Duchesne J, Fraga GP, Benjamin E, Alvarez A, et al. Management of duodenal trauma: a retrospective review from the Panamerican Trauma Society. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2019;86(3):392–396.
Weale RD, Kong VY, Bekker W, Bruce JL, Oosthuizen GV, Laing GL, et al. Primary repair of duodenal injuries: a retrospective cohort study from a major trauma centre in South Africa. Scand J Surg . 2019;108(4):280–284.
Malhotra A, Biffl WL, Moore EE, Schreiber M, Albrecht RA, Cohen M, et al. Western Trauma Association Critical Decisions in Trauma: diagnosis and management of duodenal injuries. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2015;79(6):1096–1101.
Timaran CH, Martinez O, Ospina JA. Prognostic factors and management of civilian penetrating duodenal trauma. J Trauma . 1999;47(2):330–335.