David V. Feliciano

This two-part meta-analysis combined data from eight prospective randomized trials designed to compare the nutritional efficacy of early enteral (TEN) and parenteral (TPN) nutrition in high-risk surgical patients. The combined data gave sufficient patient numbers (TEN, n = 118; TPN, n = 112) to adequately address whether route of substrate delivery affected septic complication incidence. Phase I (dropouts excluded) meta-analysis confirmed data homogeneity across study sites, that TEN and TPN groups were comparable, and that significantly fewer TEN patients experienced septic complications (TEN, 18%; TPN, 35%; p = 0.01). Phase II meta-analysis, an intent-to-treat analysis (dropouts included), confirmed that fewer TEN patients developed septic complications. Further breakdown by patient type showed that all trauma and blunt trauma subgroups had the most significant reduction in septic complications when fed enterally. In conclusion, this meta-analysis attests to the feasibility of early postoperative TEN in high-risk surgical patients and that these patients have reduced septic morbidity rates compared with those administered TPN.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of the Focused Assessment for the Sonographic examination of the Trauma patient (FAST) when performed by trauma team members during a 3-year period, and to determine the clinical conditions in which the FAST is most accurate in the assessment of injured patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The FAST is a rapid test that sequentially surveys the pericardial region for hemopericardium and then the right and left upper quadrants and pelvis for hemoperitoneum in patients with potential truncal injuries. The clinical conditions in which the FAST is most accurate in the assessment of injured patients have yet to be determined. METHODS: FAST examinations were performed on patients with precordial or transthoracic wounds or blunt abdominal trauma. Patients with a positive ultrasound (US) examination for hemopericardium underwent immediate surgery, whereas those with a positive US for hemoperitoneum underwent a computed tomography scan (if they were hemodynamically stable) or immediate celiotomy (if they were hemodynamically unstable- blood pressure < or = 90 mmHg). RESULTS: FAST examinations were performed in 1540 patients (1227 with blunt injuries, 313 with penetrating injuries). There were 1440 true-negative results, 80 true-positive results, 16 false-negative results, and 4 false-positive results; the sensitivity was 83.3%, the specificity 99.7%. US was most sensitive and specific for the evaluation of patients with precordial or transthoracic wounds (sensitivity 100%, specificity 99.3%) and hypotensive patients with blunt abdominal trauma (sensitivity 100%, specificity 100%). CONCLUSIONS: US should be the initial diagnostic modality for the evaluation of patients with precordial wounds and blunt truncal injuries because it is rapid and accurate. Because of the high sensitivity and specificity of US in the evaluation of patients with precordial wounds and hypotensive patients with blunt torso trauma, immediate surgical intervention is justified when those patients have a positive US examination.

Large epidemiologic analyses of cardiovascular injuries have been limited to studies of military campaigns compiled from many surgeons working in many hospitals with variable protocols. A detailed civilian vascular trauma registry provides a unique opportunity for an epidemiologic evolutionary profile. During the last 30 years in a single civilian trauma center directed by a consistent evaluation and treatment philosophy, 4459 patients were treated for 5760 cardiovascular injuries. Eighty-six per cent of the patients were male, and the average age was 30.0 years. Penetrating trauma was the etiology in more than 90% (GSW,51.5%; SW,31.1%; SGW,6.8%). All other injuries were iatrogenic or secondary to blunt trauma. Truncal injuries (including the neck) accounted for 66% of all injuries treated, while lower extremity injuries (including the groin) accounted for only 19%. Injuries to the abdominal vasculature accounted for 33.7% of the injuries. One thousand fifty-seven patients had 2 or more concurrent vascular injuries, and 32 patients had 4 or more separate vascular injuries. The 27 patients-per-year average of the early 1960s has risen to a current average of 213 patients per year. Economic and population factors influenced wounding agents and injury patterns during the evaluation period. This extensive civilian series presents epidemiologic profiles that are distinctly different from military reports and serves as a guide for current trauma center and health planners.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery encompasses trauma, surgical critical care, and emergency general surgery (EGS). While the first two components are well defined, the scope of EGS practice remains unclear. This article describes the work of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma to define EGS. METHODS: A total of 621 unique International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. (ICD-9) diagnosis codes were identified using billing data (calendar year 2011) from seven large academic medical centers that practice EGS. A modified Delphi methodology was used by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Committee on Severity Assessment and Patient Outcomes to review these codes and achieve consensus on the definition of primary EGS diagnosis codes. National Inpatient Sample data from 2009 were used to develop a national estimate of EGS burden of disease. RESULTS: Several unique ICD-9 codes were identified as primary EGS diagnoses. These encompass a wide spectrum of general surgery practice, including upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease, soft tissue infections, and hernias. National Inpatient Sample estimates revealed over 4 million inpatient encounters nationally in 2009 for EGS diseases. CONCLUSION: This article provides the first list of ICD-9 diagnoses codes that define the scope of EGS based on current clinical practices. These findings have wide implications for EGS workforce training, access to care, and research.