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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 2015-06, Vol.78 (6), p.1187-1196
Hauptverfasser: Roberts, Derek J, Bobrovitz, Niklas, Zygun, David A, Ball, Chad G, Kirkpatrick, Andrew W, Faris, Peter D, Stelfox, Henry T
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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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