A Five-Year Review of Management of Upper-Extremity Arterial Injuries at an Urban Level I Trauma Center

Background Upper-extremity arterial injuries are relatively uncommon, but they may significantly impact patient outcome. Management of these injuries was reviewed to determine incidence, assess the current management strategy, and evaluate hospital outcome. Methods Upper-extremity trauma patients presenting with arterial injury between January 2005 and July 2010 were included in this retrospective review. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic, injury, treatment, and outcome data. These variables also were compared between blunt and penetrating arterial injuries and between proximal and distal arterial injuries. Results During a 5.6-year period, 135 patients with 159 upper-extremity arterial injuries were admitted, yielding an incidence of 0.74% among trauma admissions. The majority of patients (78.5%) suffered concomitant upper-extremity injuries. The most common injury mechanism was laceration by glass (26.4%). Arterial injuries were categorized into 116 penetrating (73.0%) and 43 blunt (27.0%) mechanisms. Arterial distribution involved was as follows: 13 axillary (8.2%), 40 brachial (25.2%), 52 radial (32.7%), 51 ulnar (32.1%), and 3 other (1.9%). The types of arterial injuries were as follows: 69 transection (43.4%), 68 laceration (42.8%), 16 occlusion (10.1%), 3 avulsion (1.9%), and 3 entrapment (1.9%). One patient (0.7%) required a primary above-elbow amputation. The majority of injuries (96.8%) receiving vascular management underwent surgical intervention—76 primary repair (49.7%), 41 ligation (26.8%), 31 bypass (20.3%), and 5 endovascular (3.3%). Conservative treatment was the primary strategy for five arterial injuries (3.3%). Of the patients receiving vascular intervention, three (2.2%) required major and three (2.2%) required minor amputations during hospitalization and no patients expired. Conclusion The current multidisciplinary team management approach with prompt surgical management resulted in successful outcomes after upper-extremity arterial injuries. No outcome differences between penetrating and blunt or between proximal and distal arterial injuries were calculated. This management approach will continue to be used.