BackgroundA wide variety of hemostats are available as adjunctive measures to improve hemostasis during surgical procedures if residual bleeding persists despite correct application of conventional methods for hemorrhage control. Some are considered active agents, since they contain fibrinogen and thrombin and actively participate at the end of the coagulation cascade to form a fibrin clot, whereas others to be effective require an intact coagulation system. The aim of this study is to provide an evidence-based approach to correctly select the available agents to help physicians to use the most appropriate hemostat according to the clinical setting, surgical problem and patient’s coagulation status.MethodsThe literature from 2000 to 2016 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses] protocol. Sixty-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendation (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] system, and a national meeting was held.ResultsFibrin adhesives, in liquid form (fibrin glues) or with stiff collagen fleece (fibrin patch) are effective in the presence of spontaneous or drug-induced coagulation disorders. Mechanical hemostats should be preferred in patients who have an intact coagulation system. Sealants are effective, irrespective of patient’s coagulation status, to improve control of residual oozing. Hemostatic dressings represent a valuable option in case of external hemorrhage at junctional sites or when tourniquets are impractical or ineffective.ConclusionsLocal hemostatic agents are dissimilar products with different indications. A knowledge of the properties of each single agent should be in the armamentarium of acute care surgeons in order to select the appropriate product in different clinical conditions.

No abstract

BACKGROUND In blunt trauma, orthopedic injuries are often associated with cerebral and torso injuries. The optimal timing for definitive care is a concern. The aim of the study was to develop evidence-based guidelines for damage-control orthopedic (DCO) and early total care (ETC) of pelvic and long-bone fractures, closed or open, and mangled extremities in adult trauma patients with and without associated injuries. METHODS The literature since 2000 to 2016 was systematically screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses protocol. One hundred twenty-four articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendation and level of evidence using the Grading of recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, and an International Consensus Conference, endorsed by several scientific societies was held. RESULTS The choice between DCO and ETC depends on the patient's physiology, as well as associated injuries. In hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture patient, extraperitoneal pelvic packing, angioembolization, external fixation, C-clamp, and resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta are not mutually exclusive. Definitive reconstruction should be deferred until recovery of physiological stability. In long bone fractures, DCO is performed by external fixation, while ETC should be preferred in fully resuscitated patients because of better outcomes. In open fractures early debridement within 24 hours should be recommended and early closure of most grade I, II, IIIa performed. In mangled extremities, limb salvage should be considered for non–life-threatening injuries, mostly of upper limb. CONCLUSION Orthopedic priorities may be: to save a life: control hemorrhage by stabilizing the pelvis and femur fractures; to save a limb: treat soft tissue and vascular injuries associated with fractures, stabilize fractures, recognize, and prevent compartmental syndrome; to save functionality: treat dislocations, articular fractures, distal fractures. While DCO is the best initial treatment to reduce surgical load, ETC should be applied in stable or stabilized patients to accelerate the recovery of normal functions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review of predominantly level II studies, level II.

Background: Motorcyclists are often victims of road traffic incidents. Though elderly patients seem to have worse survival outcomes and sustain more severe injuries than younger patients, concordance in the literature for this does not exist. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of age and injury severity on the mortality of patients undergoing motorcycle trauma. Methods: Data of 1725 patients consecutively admitted to our Trauma Center were selected from 2002 to 2016 and retrospectively analyzed. The sample was divided into three age groups: ≤ 17 years, 18-54 years, and ≥ 55 years. Mortality rates were analyzed for the overall population and patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 25. Differences in survival among age groups were evaluated with log-rank test, and multivariate logistic regression models were created to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results: A lower survival rate was detected in patients older than 55 years (83.6% vs 94.7%, p = 0.049) and in those sustaining critical injuries (ISS ≥ 25, 61% vs 83%, p = 0.021). Age (p = 0.027, OR 1.03), ISS (p < 0.001, OR 1.09), and Revised Trauma Score (RTS) (p < 0.001, OR 0.47) resulted as independent predictors of death. Multivariate analysis identified head (p < 0.001, OR 2.04), chest (p < 0.001, OR 1.54), abdominal (p < 0.001, OR 1.37), and pelvic (p = 0.014, OR 1.26) injuries as independent risk factors related to mortality as well. Compared to the theoretical probability of survival, patients of all age groups showed a survival advantage when managed at a level I trauma center. Conclusions: We detected anatomical injury distributions and mortality rates among three age groups. Patients aging more than 55 years had an increased risk of death, with a prevalence of severe chest injuries, while younger patients sustained more severe head trauma. Age represented an independent predictor of death. Management of these patients at a level I trauma center may lead to improved outcomes.

Noncompressible torso injuries (NCTIs) represent a trauma-related condition with high lethality. This study’s aim was to identify potential prediction factors of mortality in this group of trauma patients at a Level 1 trauma center in Italy. Materials and Methods: A total of 777 patients who had sustained a noncompressible torso injury (NCTI) and were admitted to the Niguarda Trauma Center in Milan from 2010 to 2019 were included. Of these, 166 patients with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg were considered to have a noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH). Demographic data, mechanism of trauma, pre-hospital and in-hospital clinical conditions, diagnostic/therapeutic procedures, and survival outcome were retrospectively recorded. Results: Among the 777 patients, 69% were male and 90.2% sustained a blunt trauma with a median age of 43 years. The comparison between survivors and non-survivors pointed out a significantly lower pre-hospital Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and SBP (p < 0.001) in the latter group. The multivariate backward regression model identified age, pre-hospital GCS and injury severity score (ISS) (p < 0.001), pre-hospital SBP (p = 0.03), emergency department SBP (p = 0.039), performance of torso contrast enhanced computed tomography (CeCT) (p = 0.029), and base excess (BE) (p = 0.008) as independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Torso trauma patients who were hemodynamically unstable in both pre- and in-hospital phases with impaired GCS and BE had a greater risk of death. The detection of independent predictors of mortality allows for the timely identification of a subgroup of patients whose chances of survival are reduced.

BackgroundMotorcyclists are often victims of road traffic incidents. Though elderly patients seem to have worse survival outcomes and sustain more severe injuries than younger patients, concordance in the literature for this does not exist. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of age and injury severity on the mortality of patients undergoing motorcycle trauma. MethodsData of 1725 patients consecutively admitted to our Trauma Center were selected from 2002 to 2016 and retrospectively analyzed. The sample was divided into three age groups: ≤ 17 years, 18-54 years and ≥ 55 years. Mortality rates were analyzed for the overall population and patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 25. Differences in survival among age groups were evaluated with Log-Rank test and multivariate logistic regression models were created to identify independent predictors of mortality.ResultsA lower survival rate was detected in patients older than 55 years (83,6% vs 94,7%; p = 0.049) and in those sustaining critical injuries (ISS ≥ 25, 61% vs 83% p = 0.021). Age (p =0,027; OR: 1,03), ISS (p <0,001; OR: 1,09), Revised Trauma Score (RTS) (p <0,001; OR: 0,47) resulted independent predictors of death. Multivariate analysis identified head (p <0,001; OR: 2,04), chest (p <0,001; OR: 1,54), abdominal (p <0,001; OR: 1,37) and pelvic (p =0,014; OR: 1,26) injuries as independent risk factors related to mortality as well. Compared to the theoretical probability of survival, patients of all age groups showed a survival advantage when managed at a level I Trauma Center.ConclusionsWe detected anatomical injury distributions and mortality rates among three age groups. Patients aging more than 55 years had an increased risk of death, with a prevalence of severe chest injuries, while younger patients sustained more severe head trauma. Age represented an independent predictor of death. Management of these patients at a Level I Trauma Center may lead to improved outcomes.

Background Motorcyclists are often victims of road traffic incidents. Though elderly patients seem to have worse survival outcomes and sustain more severe injuries than younger patients, concordance in the literature for this does not exist. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of age and injury severity on the mortality of patients undergoing motorcycle trauma. Methods Data of 1725 patients consecutively admitted to our Trauma Center were selected from 2002 to 2016 and retrospectively analyzed. The sample was divided into three age groups: ≤ 17 years, 18-54 years and ≥ 55 years. Mortality rates were analyzed for the overall population and patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 25. Differences in survival among age groups were evaluated with Log-Rank test and multivariate logistic regression models were created to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results A lower survival rate was detected in patients older than 55 years (83,6% vs 94,7%; p = 0.049) and in those sustaining critical injuries (ISS ≥ 25, 61% vs 83% p = 0.021). Age ( p =0,027; OR: 1,03), ISS ( p <0,001; OR: 1,09), Revised Trauma Score (RTS) ( p <0,001; OR: 0,47) resulted independent predictors of death. Multivariate analysis identified head ( p <0,001; OR: 2,04), chest ( p <0,001; OR: 1,54), abdominal ( p <0,001; OR: 1,37) and pelvic ( p =0,014; OR: 1,26) injuries as independent risk factors related to mortality as well. Compared to the theoretical probability of survival, patients of all age groups showed a survival advantage when managed at a level I Trauma Center. Conclusions We detected anatomical injury distributions and mortality rates among three age groups. Patients aging more than 55 years had an increased risk of death, with a prevalence of severe chest injuries, while younger patients sustained more severe head trauma. Age represented an independent predictor of death. Management of these patients at a Level I Trauma Center may lead to improved outcomes.

No abstract