BACKGROUND The management of penetrating colon injuries in civilians has evolved over the last four decades. The objectives of this meta-analysis are to evaluate the current treatment regimens available for penetrating colon injuries and assess the role of anastomosis in damage control surgery to develop a practice management guideline for surgeons. METHODS Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a subcommittee of the Practice Management Guidelines section of EAST conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE articles from 1980 through 2017. We developed three relevant problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions regarding penetrating colon injuries. Outcomes of interest included mortality and infectious abdominal complications. RESULTS Thirty-seven studies were identified for analysis, of which 16 met criteria for quantitative meta-analysis and included 705 patients considered low-risk in six prospective randomized studies. Seven hundred thirty-eight patients in 10 studies undergoing damage control laparotomy and repair or resection and anastomosis (R&A) were included in a separate meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of high-risk patients undergoing repair or R&A was not feasible due to inadequate data. CONCLUSIONS In adult civilian patients sustaining penetrating colon injury without signs of shock, significant hemorrhage, severe contamination, or delay to surgical intervention we recommend that colon repair or R&A be performed rather than routine colostomy. In adult high-risk civilian trauma patients sustaining penetrating colon injury, we conditionally recommend that colon repair or R&A be performed rather than routine colostomy. In adult civilian trauma patients sustaining penetrating colon injury who had damage control laparotomy, we conditionally recommend that routine colostomy not be performed; instead, definitive repair or delayed R&A or anastomosis at initial operation should be performed rather than routine colostomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Splenic artery aneurysm rupture is rare and potentially fatal. It has largely been reported in pregnant patients and typically not diagnosed until laparotomy. This case reports a constellation of clinical and sonographic findings that may lead clinicians to rapidly diagnose ruptured splenic artery aneurysm at the bedside. We also propose a rapid, but systematic sonographic approach to patients with atraumatic hemoperitoneum causing shock. It is yet another demonstration of the utility of bedside ultrasound in critically ill patients, specifically with undifferentiated shock.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has ravaged many urban and high-density areas in the USA. However, rural areas (despite their low population density) may be especially vulnerable to poor outcomes from COVID-19, owing to limited healthcare infrastructure, long distances to advanced health care, and population characteristics (e.g., high tobacco use, hypertension, obesity, older age). A panel of experts who are actively engaged in treating and managing COVID-19 at a rural academic center was convened to address this topic. In this commentary, we provide readers with some specific issues faced by rural healthcare providers and offer guidance in overcoming these challenges. This guidance includes alternative ventilator strategies, personal protective equipment (PPE), and common therapeutic options.

Based on these results, some changes have already been implemented, including decreased student-to-instructor ratios, more open scan time, and more required components. The breadth of formal assessment has increased. Multiple pilot programs for clinical rotations are being developed. There is an ongoing need for faculty development and continued assessment of ultrasound competency.

BackgroundTranexamic acid (TXA) has demonstrated improved mortality among trauma patients. However, recent evidence from urban US trauma centers has failed to show a benefit among the civilian population. TXA in rural states has not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the current use of TXA in the rural trauma population.MethodsA retrospective observational review at a level 1 trauma center based in a rural environment. Records were reviewed for TXA indications. TXA indication was defined as: systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, blood transfusion, or with a clinical concern for ongoing bleeding. Patients were ineligible if the time since injury was >3 hours.Results400 patients were evaluated. 54% of patients met indications for TXA. 14% of these received TXA. 30.4% with an indication for TXA were ineligible due to arrival beyond 3 hours from time of injury. 135 patients arrived as transfers, 265 from the scene. There was no difference in TXA indications between scene and transfers (73 vs 144, p=1). Transfers were more likely to arrive beyond the 3-hour window (59 vs 7, p=0.001). Mortality for patients treated with TXA was 12.5%. This was not significantly different from patients not treated with TXA (19%).DiscussionIn a rural system, long transfers exclude most patients from treatment with TXA. A multicenter rural trauma center study will be needed to better define the optimal use of TXA in rural populations.Level of evidenceLevel IV data: therapeutic/care management.