BACKGROUND Pancreatic injuries are rare, difficult to diagnose, and complex to manage despite multiple published guidelines. This study was undertaken to evaluate the current diagnosis and management of pancreatic trauma in Canadian trauma centers. METHODS This is a multi-institutional retrospective study from 2009 to 2014 including patients from eight level 1 trauma centers across Canada. All patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic trauma were included. Demographics, injury characteristics, vital signs on admission, and type of management were collected. Outcomes measured were mortality and pancreas-related morbidity. RESULTS Two hundred seventy-nine patients were included. The median age was 29 years (interquartile range, 21–43 years), 72% were male, and 79% sustained blunt trauma. Pancreatic injury included the following grades: I, 26%; II, 28%; III, 33%; IV, 9%; and V, 4%. The overall mortality rate was 11%, and the pancreas-related complication rate was 25%. The majority (88%) of injuries were diagnosed within 24 hours of injury, primarily (80%) with a computed tomography scan. The remaining injuries were diagnosed with ultrasound (6%) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) (2%) and at the time of laparotomy or autopsy (12%). One hundred seventy-five patients (63%) underwent an operative intervention, most commonly a distal pancreatectomy (44%); however, there was great variability in operative procedure chosen even when considering grade of injury. CONCLUSION Pancreatic injuries are associated with multiple other injuries and have significant morbidity and mortality. Their management demonstrates significant practice variation within a national trauma system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/care management, level V; Prognostic and epidemiological, level IV.

Background: Building surgical capacity through global surgery partnerships (GSPs) between high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is a rising global health focus. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review to characterize strategies employed by GSPs to build capacity and promote sustainability and to propose a novel reproducible model for sustainability. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and African Journals Online to identify all peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016 that described GSPs between partners from the United States or Canada or both and partners from LMICs. We excluded papers that described nonsurgical GSPs, unilateral GSPs (e.g., humanitarian missions) or military initiatives. Descriptive features were analyzed, with a focus on attributes that promote sustainability. We then proposed criteria for sustainability on the basis of the themes that emerged from our review. Results: Our search retrieved 3580 abstracts, which were then independently reviewed by 4 authors. A total of 128 papers (3.6%) met the inclusion criteria. They described GSPs in 68 countries on 5 continents. Among the GSPs, 21.9% demonstrated community engagement and 51.6% included multidisciplinary collaboration. Surgical training or education was provided in 81.3% of GSPs. Although 64.8% of GSPs collected data, only 53.1% reported project-related outcomes. A total of 55.5% had bilateral authorship for publications, and 28.9% had multisource funding. Only 1 GSP fulfilled all 6 of our criteria for sustainability. Conclusion: In this systematic review we identified 6 pillars that are indicators of sustainability: community engagement, multidisciplinary collaboration, education and training, outcomes reporting, bilateral authorship and multisource funding. We propose that future GSPs should build on a foundation of bilateral ideas and expertise exchange, that they should have defined and measurable objectives, that they should engage in continuous evaluation of program outcomes and that they should take a thoughtful and transparent approach to sustained capacity building.

No abstract

ImportanceUnstable chest wall injuries have high rates of mortality and morbidity. In the last decade, multiple studies have reported improved outcomes with operative compared with nonoperative treatment. However, to date, an adequately powered, randomized clinical trial to support operative treatment has been lacking.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of surgical treatment of acute unstable chest wall injuries with nonsurgical management.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted from October 10, 2011, to October 2, 2019, across 15 sites in Canada and the US. Inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 16 to 85 years with displaced rib fractures with a flail chest or non–flail chest injuries with severe chest wall deformity. Exclusion criteria included patients with significant other injuries that would otherwise require prolonged mechanical ventilation, those medically unfit for surgery, or those who were randomly assigned to study groups after 72 hours of injury. Data were analyzed from March 20, 2019, to March 5, 2021.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive operative treatment with plate and screws or nonoperative treatment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) in the first 28 days after injury. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, and rates of complications (pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis, tracheostomy).ResultsA total of 207 patients were included in the analysis (operative group: 108 patients [52.2%]; mean [SD] age, 52.9 [13.5] years; 81 male [75%]; nonoperative group: 99 patients [47.8%]; mean [SD] age, 53.2 [14.3] years; 75 male [76%]). Mean (SD) VFDs were 22.7 (7.5) days for the operative group and 20.6 (9.7) days for the nonoperative group (mean difference, 2.1 days; 95% CI, −0.3 to 4.5 days; P = .09). Mortality was significantly higher in the nonoperative group (6 [6%]) than in the operative group (0%; P = .01). Rates of complications and length of stay were similar between groups. Subgroup analysis of patients who were mechanically ventilated at the time of randomization demonstrated a mean difference of 2.8 (95% CI, 0.1-5.5) VFDs in favor of operative treatment.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that operative treatment of patients with unstable chest wall injuries has modest benefit compared with nonoperative treatment. However, the potential advantage was primarily noted in the subgroup of patients who were ventilated at the time of randomization. No benefit to operative treatment was found in patients who were not ventilated.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01367951

The increasing prevalence of advanced cirrhosis among operative candidates poses a major challenge for the acute care surgeon. The severity of hepatic dysfunction, degree of portal hypertension, emergency of surgery, and severity of patients’ comorbidities constitute predictors of postoperative mortality. Comprehensive history taking, physical examination, and thorough review of laboratory and imaging examinations typically elucidate clinical evidence of hepatic dysfunction, portal hypertension, and/or their complications. Utilization of specific scoring systems (Child-Pugh and MELD) adds objectivity to stratifying the severity of hepatic dysfunction. Hypovolemia and coagulopathy often represent major preoperative concerns. Resuscitation mandates judicious use of intravenous fluids and blood products. As a general rule, the most expeditious and least invasive operative procedure should be planned. Laparoscopic approaches, advanced energy devices, mechanical staplers, and topical hemostatics should be considered whenever applicable to improve safety. Precise operative technique must acknowledge common distortions in hepatic anatomy, as well as the risk of massive hemorrhage from porto-systemic collaterals. Preventive measures, as well as both clinical and laboratory vigilance, for postoperative hepatic and renal decompensation are essential.

No abstract

Background: In medical and surgical departments around the world, morbidity and mortality conferences (MMC) serve dual roles: they are cornerstones of quality-improvement programs and provide timely opportunities for education within the urgent context of clinical care. Despite the widespread adoption of MMCs, adverse events and preventable errors remain high or incompletely characterized, and opportunities to learn from and adjust to these events are frequently lost. This review examines the published literature on strategies to improve surgical MMCs. Methods:We searched OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL. We defined our combination of search terms using a PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) model, focusing on the use of MMCs in general surgery. Results:The MMC literature focused on 5 themes: educational value, error analysis, case selection and representation, attendance and dissemination. Strategies used to increase educational value included limiting case presentation time to 15-20 minutes, mandatory brief literature reviews, increasing audience interaction, and standardizing presentations using a PowerPoint template or SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) format. Interventions to improve error analysis included focused discussion on causative factors and taxonomic error analysis. Case selection was improved by using an electronic clinical registry, such as the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program, to better capture incidence of morbidity and mortality. Attendance was improved with teleconferencing. Dissemination strategies included MMC newsletters, incorporating MMCs into plan-do-check-act cycles, and surgeon report cards. Conclusion:Greater standardization of best practices may increase the quality improvement and educational impact of MMCs and provide a baseline to measure the effect of new MMC format innovations on the clinical and educational performance of surgical systems. Contexte : Dans les services de médecine et de chirurgie du monde entier, les conférences sur la morbidité et la mortalité (CMM) jouent 2 rôles : elles forment la pierre angulaire des programmes d'amélioration de la qualité de soins et fournissent l'occasion de faire de l'enseignement dans le contexte même des soins cliniques immédiats. Malgré la popularité grandissante des CMM, le nombre d'événements indési rables et d'erreurs évitables demeure élevé ou mal caractérisé et on perd beaucoup d'occasions d'apprendre de ces événements et d'apporter les changements qui s'imposent. La présente revue analyse la littérature publiée sur les stratégies d'amélioration des CMM en chirurgie. Méthodes : Nous avons interrogé OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase et CENTRAL. Nous avons défini nos combinaisons de mots clés à l'aide du modèle PICO (population, intervention, comparaison et résultat [outcome]), en mettant l'accent sur l'utilisation des CMM en chirurgie générale.Résultats : La littérature sur les CMM se concentrait sur 5 thèmes : valeur didactique, analyse des erreurs, sélection et représentation...

Background Injury is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Trauma training is a cost-effective way to improve injury outcomes. Several trauma programs have been implemented in LMICs; however, their scope and effectiveness remain unclear. In this review, we sought to describe and assess the current state of trauma training in LMICs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global for trauma training courses in LMICs. An additional gray literature search was conducted on university, governmental, and non- governmental organizations’ websites to identify trauma-related postgraduate medical education (PGME) opportunities. Results Most studies occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and participants were primarily physicians/surgeons, medical students/residents, and nurses. General and surgical trauma management courses were most common, followed by orthopedic trauma or plastic surgery trauma/burn care courses. 32/45 studies reported on participant knowledge and skills, 27 of which had minimal follow-up. Of the four studies commenting on cost of courses, only one demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Three articles evaluated post-course effects on patient outcomes, two of which failed to demonstrate significant improvements. Overall, 43.0% of LMICs have PGME programs with defined trauma competency requirements. Conclusions Current studies on trauma training in LMICs do not clearly demonstrate sustainability, cost-effectiveness, nor improved outcomes. Trauma training programs should be in response to a need, championed locally, and work within a cohesive system to demonstrate concrete benefits. We recommend standardized and contextualized trauma training with recertifications in LMICs for lasting and improved trauma care.