Six years after the first report of laparoscopic surgery, studies low in the hierarchy of evidence continue to be reported. This reflects a lack of control following the introduction of this new technology. The majority of reports continue to be feasibility studies. The variable nature and content of the literature demonstrate the lack of standardization and the absence of an agreed core minimum data set. The benefit of laparoscopic surgery for malignant colorectal disease remains unclear. Until the mechanisms of port site recurrences are elucidated and long-term data on survival outcomes become available, laparoscopic surgery for malignant disease should be carried out only in the context of a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundRoutine repeat cranial CT (RHCT) is standard of care for CT-verified traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite mixed evidence, those with mild TBI are subject to radiation and expense from serial CT scans. Thus, we investigated the necessity and utility of RHCT for patients with mild TBI. We hypothesized that repeat head CT in these patients would not alter patient care or outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively studied patients suffering from mild TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 13–15) and treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center from November 2014 through January 2015. The primary outcome was the need for surgical intervention. Outcomes were compared using paired Student’s t-test, and stratified by injury on initial CT, GCS change, demographics, and presenting vital signs (mean ± SD).ResultsEighty-five patients met inclusion criteria with an average initial GCS score=14.6±0.57. Our center sees about 2800 patients with TBI per year, or about 230 per month. This includes patients with concussions. This sample represents about 30% of patients with TBI seen during the study period. Ten patients required operation (four based on initial CT and others for worsening GCS, headaches, large unresolving injury). There was progression of injury on repeat CT scan in only two patients that required operation, and this accompanied clinical deterioration. The mean brain Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score was 4.8±0.3 for surgical patients on initial CT scan compared with 3.4±0.6 (P<0.001) for non-surgical patients. Initial CT subdural hematoma size was 1.1±0.6 cm for surgical patients compared with 0.49±0.3 cm (P=0.05) for non-surgical patients. There was no significant difference between intervention groups in terms of other intracranial injuries, demographics, vital signs, or change in GCS. Overall, 75 patients that did not require surgical intervention received RHCT. At $340 per CT, $51 000 was spent on unnecessary imaging ($367 000/year, extrapolated).DiscussionIn an environment of increased scrutiny on healthcare expenditures, it is necessary to question dogma and eliminate unnecessary cost. Our data questions the use of routine repeat head CT scans in every patient with anatomic TBI and suggests that clinically stable patients with small injury can simply be followed clinically.Level of evidenceLevel III.

Background: Damage control laparotomy has increased survival for critically injured patient with penetrating abdominal trauma. There has been a slower adoption of a damage control strategy for thoracic trauma despite the considerable mortality associated with emergent thoracotomy for patients in profound shock. We postulated admission physiology, not blood pressure or shock index, would identify patients who would benefit from thoracic damage control. Study Design: Retrospective trauma registry review from 2002 to 2017 at a busy, urban trauma center. Three hundred one patients with penetrating thoracic trauma operated on within 6 h of admission were identified. Of those 66 (21.9%) required thoracic damage control and comprise the study population. Results: Compared with the non-damage control group, the 66 damage control patients had significantly higher Injury Severity Score, chest Abbreviated Injury Scale, lactate and base deficit, and lower pH and temperature. In addition, the damage control thoracic surgery group had significantly more gunshot wounds, transfusions, concomitant laparotomies, vasoactive infusions, and shorter time to the operating room. Notably, however, there were no significant differences in admission systolic blood pressure or shock index between the groups. Once normal physiology was restored, chest closure was performed 1.7 (0.7) days after the index operation. Mortality for thoracic damage was 15.2%, significantly higher than the 4.3% in the non-damage control group. Over two-thirds of damage control deaths occurred prior to chest closure. Conclusions: Mortality in this series of severely injured, profoundly physiologically altered patients undergoing thoracic damage control is substantially lower than previously reported. Rather than relying on blood pressure and shock index, early recognition of shock identifies patients in whom thoracic damage control is beneficial.