Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review
Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 2015-06, Vol.78 (6), p.1187-1196 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1196 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1187 |
container_title | The journal of trauma and acute care surgery |
container_volume | 78 |
creator | Roberts, Derek J Bobrovitz, Niklas Zygun, David A Ball, Chad G Kirkpatrick, Andrew W Faris, Peter D Stelfox, Henry T |
description | Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients.
Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study.
The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/TA.0000000000000647 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1695177826</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1695177826</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c220t-1210be53a6196ad1affaab4688210a8cc817980508efd2bd6dbdfe4b8b1ee0d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkF9LwzAUxYMobsx9AkHy6Etnki5p6tsY_hkMfJnPJU1uR6RNatJOBn54O6ZDdl_uhd8558JB6JaSGSV59rBZzMj_EfPsAo0ZFWlCMpFenm7OR2ga48dBxEWecn6NRkxQTjljY_S9csZq1VnvIq58wH0E7CtsVKO2gLV3XfA1jn3YQthj5cw5sq6DsAN3jLAOa7uztVUOd0H1jcLtkD7g-IgXOGrfWrfFAXYWvm7QVaXqCNPfPUHvz0-b5WuyfntZLRfrRDNGuoQySkrgqRI0F8pQVVVKlXMh5QCU1FrSLJeEEwmVYaURpjQVzEtZUgBiZDpB98fcNvjPHmJXNDZqqGvlwPexoCLnNMskE4M0PUp18DEGqIo22EaFfUFJcWi-2CyK8-YH193vg75swJw8fz2nP2X3gKs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1695177826</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Roberts, Derek J ; Bobrovitz, Niklas ; Zygun, David A ; Ball, Chad G ; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W ; Faris, Peter D ; Stelfox, Henry T</creator><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Derek J ; Bobrovitz, Niklas ; Zygun, David A ; Ball, Chad G ; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W ; Faris, Peter D ; Stelfox, Henry T</creatorcontrib><description>Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients.
Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study.
The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2163-0755</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2163-0763</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000647</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26151522</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Critical Care ; Humans ; Patient Selection ; Trauma Centers ; Wounds and Injuries - pathology ; Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><ispartof>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2015-06, Vol.78 (6), p.1187-1196</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c220t-1210be53a6196ad1affaab4688210a8cc817980508efd2bd6dbdfe4b8b1ee0d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c220t-1210be53a6196ad1affaab4688210a8cc817980508efd2bd6dbdfe4b8b1ee0d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151522$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Derek J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobrovitz, Niklas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zygun, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, Chad G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirkpatrick, Andrew W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faris, Peter D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stelfox, Henry T</creatorcontrib><title>Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review</title><title>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery</title><addtitle>J Trauma Acute Care Surg</addtitle><description>Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients.
Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study.
The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications.</description><subject>Critical Care</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Trauma Centers</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - pathology</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><issn>2163-0755</issn><issn>2163-0763</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkF9LwzAUxYMobsx9AkHy6Etnki5p6tsY_hkMfJnPJU1uR6RNatJOBn54O6ZDdl_uhd8558JB6JaSGSV59rBZzMj_EfPsAo0ZFWlCMpFenm7OR2ga48dBxEWecn6NRkxQTjljY_S9csZq1VnvIq58wH0E7CtsVKO2gLV3XfA1jn3YQthj5cw5sq6DsAN3jLAOa7uztVUOd0H1jcLtkD7g-IgXOGrfWrfFAXYWvm7QVaXqCNPfPUHvz0-b5WuyfntZLRfrRDNGuoQySkrgqRI0F8pQVVVKlXMh5QCU1FrSLJeEEwmVYaURpjQVzEtZUgBiZDpB98fcNvjPHmJXNDZqqGvlwPexoCLnNMskE4M0PUp18DEGqIo22EaFfUFJcWi-2CyK8-YH193vg75swJw8fz2nP2X3gKs</recordid><startdate>201506</startdate><enddate>201506</enddate><creator>Roberts, Derek J</creator><creator>Bobrovitz, Niklas</creator><creator>Zygun, David A</creator><creator>Ball, Chad G</creator><creator>Kirkpatrick, Andrew W</creator><creator>Faris, Peter D</creator><creator>Stelfox, Henry T</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201506</creationdate><title>Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review</title><author>Roberts, Derek J ; Bobrovitz, Niklas ; Zygun, David A ; Ball, Chad G ; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W ; Faris, Peter D ; Stelfox, Henry T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c220t-1210be53a6196ad1affaab4688210a8cc817980508efd2bd6dbdfe4b8b1ee0d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Critical Care</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Trauma Centers</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - pathology</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Derek J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobrovitz, Niklas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zygun, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, Chad G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirkpatrick, Andrew W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faris, Peter D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stelfox, Henry T</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roberts, Derek J</au><au>Bobrovitz, Niklas</au><au>Zygun, David A</au><au>Ball, Chad G</au><au>Kirkpatrick, Andrew W</au><au>Faris, Peter D</au><au>Stelfox, Henry T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review</atitle><jtitle>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Trauma Acute Care Surg</addtitle><date>2015-06</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1187</spage><epage>1196</epage><pages>1187-1196</pages><issn>2163-0755</issn><eissn>2163-0763</eissn><abstract>Variation in the use of damage control (DC) surgery across trauma centers may partially be driven by uncertainty as to when the procedure is indicated. We sought to scope the literature on DC surgery and DC interventions, identify their reported indications, and examine the content and evidence upon which they are based.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (1950-February 14, 2014) and the grey literature for original and nonoriginal citations reporting indications for DC surgery or DC interventions in civilian trauma patients.
Among 27,732 citations identified, we included 270 peer-reviewed articles in the scoping review. Of these, 156 (57.8%) represented original research, primarily (75.0%) cohort studies. The articles reported 1,099 indications for DC surgery and 418 indications for 15 different DC interventions. The majority of indications for DC interventions were for abdominal (56.5%) procedures, including therapeutic perihepatic packing (56.5%), temporary abdominal closure/open abdominal management (40.7%), and staged pancreaticoduodenectomy (2.8%). Most DC surgery indications were based on intraoperative findings (71.7%) and represented characteristics of the injured patient (94.5%), including their physiology (57.6%), injuries (38.9%), and/or the amount or type of resuscitation provided (14.3%). Others were dependent on characteristics of the treating surgeon (12.1%), the patient's physiologic response to trauma care (9.6%), and/or the trauma care environment (1.5%). Approximately half (49.5%) included a decision threshold (e.g., pH < X) and, while most (74.7%) were based on a single clinical finding/injury, 25.3% required the presence of multiple findings concurrently. Only 87 indications were evaluated in original research studies and only 9 by more than one study.
The vast number, varying underlying content, and lack of original research relating to indications for DC suggests that substantial uncertainty exists around when the procedure is indicated and highlights the need to establish evidence-informed consensus indications.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>26151522</pmid><doi>10.1097/TA.0000000000000647</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2163-0755 |
ispartof | The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2015-06, Vol.78 (6), p.1187-1196 |
issn | 2163-0755 2163-0763 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1695177826 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Critical Care Humans Patient Selection Trauma Centers Wounds and Injuries - pathology Wounds and Injuries - surgery |
title | Indications for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: A scoping review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T15%3A51%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Indications%20for%20use%20of%20damage%20control%20surgery%20and%20damage%20control%20interventions%20in%20civilian%20trauma%20patients:%20A%20scoping%20review&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20trauma%20and%20acute%20care%20surgery&rft.au=Roberts,%20Derek%20J&rft.date=2015-06&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1187&rft.epage=1196&rft.pages=1187-1196&rft.issn=2163-0755&rft.eissn=2163-0763&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/TA.0000000000000647&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1695177826%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1695177826&rft_id=info:pmid/26151522&rfr_iscdi=true |