Background: Societal restrictions and lockdown during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic have had a significant impact on the volume and nature of trauma admissions. We assessed the impact of COVID-19 related societal restrictions and lockdown on trauma admissions to single level 1 trauma centre in Westmead, Australia. We hypothesized that the number of trauma admissions would decrease and number of admissions due to selfharm and assault (specifically domestic violence) would increase. Methods: Data was collected from the prospectively maintained Westmead Hospital Trauma Registry. The primary outcome compared was the average number of trauma admissions during March and April during years 2016 to 2020. Analysis of variance was used to analyse means. Pairwise differences among group means were evaluated with Tukey's honestly significant difference test. Secondary outcomes compared were in-hospital interventions and patient outcomes. Results: There was a 23-34% decrease (P = 0.018) in the mean monthly average trauma admissions during March/April 2020 compared with previous years 2016-2019. In addition, there was a 40-52% decrease (P = 0.025) and 13-29% decrease (P = 0.020) in admissions due to road traffic collisions and falls respectively. Conclusion: There was a significant decrease in the overall number of trauma-related admissions during the COVID-19-related period of societal restrictions and lockdown. This was due to a decrease in minor traumas, falls and road traffic collisions. There was no difference in the number of admissions secondary to major traumas, self-harm or assault.

No abstract

Introduction:Exsanguinating pelvic fractures are still associated with a significant mortality rate of 28-60%. Extraperitoneal pelvic packing (EPP) has been proposed as an optimal method of early haemorrhage control. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of EPP compared with angioembolization as a primary intervention for patients with exsanguinating pelvic fracture.Method:A prospective observational trial was performed at Westmead Hospital between September 2011 and May 2014. Adult patients with exsanguinating pelvic fracture were allocated into one of two treatment groups determined by the primary/initial haemorrhage control technique: 1. EPP followed by angioembolization or 2. Angioembolization alone. The intervention was determined by the on-call surgeon's proficiency with EPP. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected. Univariate analysis of the two groups was performed with Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney-U test and Fisher's exact test.Results:24 exsanguinating pelvic fracture cases were included. 14 underwent EPP while 10 underwent angioembolization as the primary intervention. Although not statistically significant, the EPP group was more severely injured (Injury Severity Score 32 vs. 23), more acidotic (base deficit 7.9 vs. 6.2), and more hypotensive (Systolic Blood Pressure 74.2 vs. 84.3). Despite these differences, mortality was reduced (7.1% vs. 30%, not significant). Time to EPP compared with angioembolization was reduced (67.6 vs. 130.2 minutes, P = 0.017). Pre-angioembolization transfusion requirement was also reduced with EPP (0.032 vs. 0.052 units/min, P = 0.04). Arterial injury was found in 51% of the EPP group. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the groups.Conclusion:EPP appears to be a safe and efficient technique for primary haemorrhage control in exsanguinating pelvic fractures. Given the high rate of associated arterial injury, EPP should be considered as the first part of a “damage control” approach for exsanguinating pelvic fractures.

No abstract

Background: This study compared rates of progression to chronic breast cancer-related lymphedema (defined as ≥ 10% arm volume change from baseline requiring complex decongestive physiotherapy [CDP]) following an intervention for subclinical lymphedema (S-BCRL) triggered by bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) or by tape measurement (TM). Methods and Results: This stratified, randomized, international trial enrolled new breast cancer patients undergoing: mastectomy/partial mastectomy, axillary treatment (dissection, sentinel lymph node biopsy [SLNB] >6 nodes or radiation), radiation therapy (chest wall/breast, supraclavicular fossa), or taxane-based chemotherapy. Following postsurgery eligibility reassessment, centralized, 1:1 randomization to prospective surveillance by BIS or TM occurred. S-BCRL detection triggered a 4-week, 12-hour per day, compression sleeve, and gauntlet intervention. The primary outcome ( n = 209), rates of postintervention progression to CDP, was assessed over 3 years. Between June 24, 2014 and September 11, 2018, 1200 patients were enrolled, 963 randomized (BIS n = 482; TM n = 481) and 879 analyzed (BIS n = 442; TM n = 437). Median follow-up was 32.9 months (interquartile range = 22, 35). BIS patients triggered an intervention at a lower rate than TM patients (20.1%, n = 89 vs. 27.5%, n = 120, p = 0.011). Median months to trigger were longer with BIS than TM (9.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2–12.6 vs. 3.9; 95% CI, 2.8–4.5, p = 0.001). Overall, 14.4% ( n = 30) progressed post-intervention, with reduced likelihood for BIS patients than TM patients (7.9%, n = 7 vs. 19.2%, n = 23; relative risk = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13–0.81; absolute reduction 11.3%; 95% CI, 2.3–20.3; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Compared to TM, BIS provides a more precise identification of patients likely to benefit from an early compression intervention. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT02167659.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract

Background: Biologic and synthetic meshes are used in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for coverage of the lower pole of the implant. This study aimed to compare outcomes of Veritas with TiLOOP bra (TiLOOP group [TG]). Methods: Retrospective study of skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomies in patients who underwent an implant-based reconstruction using either Veritas or TiLOOP bra between January 2014 and December 2016 was performed. Results: Thirty-six reconstructions (22 unilateral, 7 bilateral) using the Veritas mesh and 179 breast reconstructions (61 unilateral, 59 bilateral) using TiLOOP bra were identified. The Veritas group (VG) showed a higher rate of postoperative complications compared with the TG (VG = 54% versus TG = 14%, P < 0.01%), including higher rates of seroma, nonintegration of mesh (VG = 51.4% versus TG = 1.6%, P < 0.01), implant rotation (VG = 16.2% versus TG = 1.6%, P < 0.01), infection (VG = 18.9% versus TG = 2.1%, P < 0.01), and wound breakdown (VG = 10.8% versus TG = 0.5%, P < 0.01). The VG also had a higher rate of major interventions (VG = 35.1% versus TG = 7.8%, P < 0.01) and minor interventions (VG = 18.9% versus TG = 2.2%, P < 0.01) compared with TG, including a higher rate of implant loss and unplanned return to theater. Conclusions: Veritas mesh was associated with a significantly higher rate of postoperative complications compared with TiLOOP bra. Our data strongly question the safety profile of Veritas in implant-based breast reconstruction. Further studies in this area are warranted.