No abstract

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are common among trauma patients and analgesia remains the cornerstone of treatment. Intercostal nerve blocks provide analgesia but are limited by the duration of the anesthetic. This study compares outcomes of epidural analgesia with intercostal nerve block using liposomal bupivacaine for the treatment of traumatic rib fractures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was used to identify patients who received either epidural analgesia or intercostal nerve block with liposomal bupivacaine for the treatment of traumatic rib fractures. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio on age, Injury Severity Score, and number of rib fractures. Outcomes included intubations, mechanical ventilation days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: After matching, 116 patients were included in the study. Patients receiving intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine were less likely to require intubation (3% vs 17%; p ¼ 0.015), had shorter hospital LOS (mean AE SD 8 AE 6 days vs 11 AE 9 days; p ¼ 0.020) and ICU LOS (mean AE SD 2 AE 5 days vs 5 AE 6 days; p ¼ 0.007). There were no differences in ventilator days or mortality. Minor complications occurred in 26% of patients that received an epidural catheter for rib fractures. No complications occurred in the patients receiving intercostal nerve block. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine required intubation less frequently and had shorter ICU and hospital LOS compared with epidural analgesia patients. These results suggest that intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine might be equal or superior to epidural analgesia.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe obese (body mass index, BMI > 30) have been identified as a subgroup of patients in regards to traumatic injuries. A recent study found that high-grade hepatic injuries were more common in obese than non-obese pediatric patients. This study seeks to evaluate whether similar differences exist in the adult population and examine differences in operative versus non-operative management between the obese and non-obese in blunt abdominal trauma.MethodsPatient with trauma evaluated at an American College of Surgeons verified Level I trauma center from February 2013 to November 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients aged >18 years with blunt mechanism of injury and a BMI listed in the trauma registry were included. Patients were excluded for incomplete data, including BMI or inability to grade hepatic or splenic injury. Data collected included age, gender, BMI, injury severity score, hospital length of stay, procedures on liver or spleen, and mortality. Organ injuries were scored using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading scales, and were determined by either imaging or intraoperative findings. Obesity was classified as BMI > 30 compared with non-obese with BMI < 30.ResultsDuring the study period, 9481 patients were included. There were 322 spleen injuries and 237 liver injuries, with 64 patients sustaining both liver and splenic injuries. No differences existed in the percentage of high-grade hepatic or splenic injuries between the obese and non-obese. Obese patients with liver injuries were more likely to have procedural intervention than non-obese liver injuries and had higher rates of mortality. No differences were found in intervention for splenic injury between obese and non-obese.ConclusionsContrary to prior studies on adult and pediatric patients with trauma, this study found no difference between obese and non-obese patients in severity of solid organ injury after blunt abdominal trauma in the adult population. However, there was an increased rate of procedural intervention and mortality for obese patients with liver injuries.Level of Evidence3.