Pelvic fractures can result in life-threatening hemorrhages. Therefore, pelvic fracture patients must usually be transferred to a trauma center for additional management. We attempted to analyze transferred pelvic fracture patients to determine which diagnostic modalities to use in different treatment settings.From May 1, 2008, to February 28, 2014, patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other local hospitals within 24 hours after the trauma were enrolled. We compared the pre-transfer conditions and pelvic X-ray results from the local hospitals between the group of patients that underwent further angioembolization at the trauma center and the group that did not. The role of computed tomography (CT) in the decision-making process (i.e., regarding additional angioembolization) at the different institutions was discussed.In total, 751 patients were enrolled in the current study. Of the patients who received further angioembolization at the trauma center, 77.6 % (121/156) had sacro-iliac (SI) joint disruption on their pre-transfer pelvic X-ray; this rate was significantly higher than that of the patients who did not undergo further embolization (77.6 % vs. 25.5 %, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the use of pre-transfer CT scans at the local hospitals between the patients who underwent angioembolization and those who did not (53.8 % vs. 50.3 %, p = 0.472). Furthermore, of these patients, there was no significant difference in the length of emergency department stay (from arrival to angioembolization) at the trauma center among the patients who underwent pre-transfer CT scans and those who did not (97.4 ± 69.3 minutes vs. 108.6 ± 21.8 minutes, p = 0.461).When managing patients with pelvic fractures, the more attention should be paid to those with SI joint disruption on pelvic X-ray. Because these patients are more likely to require further angioembolization, they should be transferred earlier. Additional CT may be performed after the patient's transfer to the trauma center to determine subsequent treatment.
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is the most acceptable procedure in laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Nevertheless, knowledge regarding patients at a high anesthetic risk during lengthy and technically demanding LDP is controversial. This study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of LDP in patients with high anesthetic risk.We conducted a prospective collection retrospective review of patients underwent LDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) from January 2011 until December 2013. By the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, patients were divided into low- and high-risk patients. We compared the clinical, perioperative, and postoperative results in these patients.The cohort included 77 patients: 20 underwent LDP, and 57 underwent ODP. There were 30 patients in the low-risk group and 47 patients in the high-risk group. In high-risk patients, LDP, compared with ODP, presented a shorter operating time (mean, 220.8±101.1 minutes versus 299.4±124.3 minutes; P=.038), less blood loss (409.3±569.9 mL versus 1083.1±1583.0 mL; P=.039), higher rate of spleen preservation (73.3% versus 43.8%, P=.037), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) (9.5±3.0 days versus 15.7±9.4 days; P=.044).In conclusion, LDP provides early recovery and better cosmetic appearance. In high anesthetic risk patients, LDP shows less operative time, less perioperative blood loss, a higher rate of spleen preservation, slighter complication, and shorter LOS, which might explain why LDP is a feasible and effective procedure.
In this study, we explored the possible causes of death and risk factors in patients who overcame the initial critical circumstance when undergoing a damage control laparotomy for abdominal trauma and succumbed later to their clinical course. This was a retrospective study. We selected patients who fulfilled our study criteria from 2002 to 2012. The medical and surgical data of these patients were then reviewed. Fifty patients (survival vs. late death, 39 vs. 11) were enrolled for further analysis. In a univariable analysis, most of the significant factors were noted in the initial emergency department (ED) stage and early intensive care unit (ICU) stage, while an analysis of perioperative factors revealed a minimal impact on survival. Initial hypoperfusion (pH, BE, and GCS level) and initial poor physiological conditions (body temperature, RTS, and CPCR at ED) may contribute to the patient's final outcome. An analysis and summary of the causes of death were also performed. According to our study, the risk factors for late death in patients undergoing DCL may include both the initial trauma-related status and clinical conditions after DCL. In our series, the cause of death for patients with late mortality included the initial brain insult and later infectious complications.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(60)'/%3e%3ccircle r='17' fill='%23000095'/%3e%3ccircle r='15' fill='%23fff'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
