Cargando…
Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33706763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-021-00352-5 |
_version_ | 1783663637070610432 |
---|---|
author | Roberts, Derek J. Bobrovitz, Niklas Zygun, David A. Kirkpatrick, Andrew W. Ball, Chad G. Faris, Peter D. Stelfox, Henry T. |
author_facet | Roberts, Derek J. Bobrovitz, Niklas Zygun, David A. Kirkpatrick, Andrew W. Ball, Chad G. Faris, Peter D. Stelfox, Henry T. |
author_sort | Roberts, Derek J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes). METHODS: We searched 11 databases (1950–April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions. RESULTS: Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications. CONCLUSIONS: Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00352-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7951941 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79519412021-03-12 Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review Roberts, Derek J. Bobrovitz, Niklas Zygun, David A. Kirkpatrick, Andrew W. Ball, Chad G. Faris, Peter D. Stelfox, Henry T. World J Emerg Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes). METHODS: We searched 11 databases (1950–April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions. RESULTS: Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications. CONCLUSIONS: Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00352-5. BioMed Central 2021-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7951941/ /pubmed/33706763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-021-00352-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Roberts, Derek J. Bobrovitz, Niklas Zygun, David A. Kirkpatrick, Andrew W. Ball, Chad G. Faris, Peter D. Stelfox, Henry T. Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
title | Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
title_full | Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
title_short | Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
title_sort | evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33706763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-021-00352-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT robertsderekj evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT bobrovitzniklas evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT zygundavida evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT kirkpatrickandreww evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT ballchadg evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT farispeterd evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT stelfoxhenryt evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview AT evidenceforuseofdamagecontrolsurgeryanddamagecontrolinterventionsinciviliantraumapatientsasystematicreview |