BackgroundA wide variety of hemostats are available as adjunctive measures to improve hemostasis during surgical procedures if residual bleeding persists despite correct application of conventional methods for hemorrhage control. Some are considered active agents, since they contain fibrinogen and thrombin and actively participate at the end of the coagulation cascade to form a fibrin clot, whereas others to be effective require an intact coagulation system. The aim of this study is to provide an evidence-based approach to correctly select the available agents to help physicians to use the most appropriate hemostat according to the clinical setting, surgical problem and patient’s coagulation status.MethodsThe literature from 2000 to 2016 was systematically screened according to PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses] protocol. Sixty-six articles were reviewed by a panel of experts to assign grade of recommendation (GoR) and level of evidence (LoE) using the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] system, and a national meeting was held.ResultsFibrin adhesives, in liquid form (fibrin glues) or with stiff collagen fleece (fibrin patch) are effective in the presence of spontaneous or drug-induced coagulation disorders. Mechanical hemostats should be preferred in patients who have an intact coagulation system. Sealants are effective, irrespective of patient’s coagulation status, to improve control of residual oozing. Hemostatic dressings represent a valuable option in case of external hemorrhage at junctional sites or when tourniquets are impractical or ineffective.ConclusionsLocal hemostatic agents are dissimilar products with different indications. A knowledge of the properties of each single agent should be in the armamentarium of acute care surgeons in order to select the appropriate product in different clinical conditions.

This experience suggests that PDE + ICG, combined with IOUS, may represent a safe and effective tool for ensuring the complete surgical eradication of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Backgrounds The COVID-19 pandemic drastically strained the health systems worldwide, obligating the reassessment of how healthcare is delivered. In Lombardia, Italy, a Regional Emergency Committee (REC) was established and the regional health system reorganized, with only three hospitals designated as hubs for trauma care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of this reorganization of regional care, comparing the distribution of patients before and during the COVID-19 outbreak and to describe changes in the epidemiology of severe trauma among the two periods. Methods A cohort study was conducted using retrospectively collected data from the Regional Trauma Registry of Lombardia (LTR). We compared the data of trauma patients admitted to three hub hospitals before the COVID-19 outbreak (September 1 to November 19, 2019) with those recorded during the pandemic (February 21 to May 10, 2020) in the same hospitals. Demographic data, level of pre-hospital care (Advanced Life Support-ALS, Basic Life Support-BLS), type of transportation, mechanism of injury (MOI), abbreviated injury score (AIS, 1998 version), injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score (RTS), and ICU admission and survival outcome of all the patients admitted to the three trauma centers designed as hubs, were reviewed. Screening for COVID-19 was performed with nasopharyngeal swabs, chest ultrasound, and/or computed tomography. Results During the COVID-19 pandemic, trauma patients admitted to the hubs increased (46.4% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001) with an increase in pre-hospital time (71.8 vs 61.3 min, p < 0.01), while observed in hospital mortality was unaffected. TRISS, ISS, AIS, and ICU admission were similar in both periods. During the COVID-19 outbreak, we observed substantial changes in MOI of severe trauma patients admitted to three hubs, with increases of unintentional (31.9% vs 18.5%, p < 0.05) and intentional falls (8.4% vs 1.2%, p < 0.05), whereas the pandemic restrictions reduced road- related injuries (35.6% vs 60%, p < 0.05). Deaths on scene were significantly increased (17.7% vs 6.8%, p < 0.001). Conclusions The COVID-19 outbreak affected the epidemiology of severe trauma patients. An increase in trauma patient admissions to a few designated facilities with high level of care obtained satisfactory results, while COVID-19 patients overwhelmed resources of most other hospitals.

The aim of this study was to analyze the results of 9 years of trauma care and data collection in a level 1 urban trauma center in Northern Italy. Overall, 6065 patients have been included in the study; the number of patients managed yearly has doubled between 2011 and 2019. This rise mostly involved patients with injury severity score (ISS) < 16. Most injuries (94%) were blunt. Road traffic accidents, especially involving motorcycles, were the most common cause of injury. Self-inflicted injuries were responsible for less than 5% of trauma but they were severe in 56% of cases. The median age was 38 and it remained constant over the years; 43% of patients had 14–39 years of age. Different characteristics and patterns of injury were observed for each age group and gender. Males were more likely to be injured in the central years of life while females presented a trimodal pattern in the age distribution. Young adults (14–39 years old) were overall at higher risk of self-harm. Overall mortality was equal to 5.2%. Most deceased were male and ≥ 65 years of age.

No abstract