Dataset Information

Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes).

Methods

We searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions.

Results

Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications.

Conclusions

Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

SUBMITTER: Roberts DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7951941 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth inequities remain a public health concern. Chronic adversity such as discrimination or racism as trauma may perpetuate health inequities in marginalized populations. There is a growing body of the literature on trauma informed and culturally competent care as essential elements of promoting health equity, yet no prior review has systematically addressed trauma informed interventions. The purpose of this study was to appraise the types, setting, scope, and delivery of trauma informed interventions and associated outcomes.MethodsWe performed database searches- PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS and PsycINFO-to identify quantitative studies published in English before June 2019. Thirty-two unique studies with one companion article met the eligibility criteria.ResultsMore than half of the 32 studies were randomized controlled trials (n = 19). Thirteen studies were conducted in the United States. Child abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault were the most common types of trauma addressed (n = 16). While the interventions were largely focused on reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (n = 23), depression (n = 16), or anxiety (n = 10), trauma informed interventions were mostly delivered in an outpatient setting (n = 20) by medical professionals (n = 21). Two most frequently used interventions were eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (n = 6) and cognitive behavioral therapy (n = 5). Intervention fidelity was addressed in 16 studies. Trauma informed interventions significantly reduced PTSD symptoms in 11 of 23 studies. Fifteen studies found improvements in three main psychological outcomes including PTSD symptoms (11 of 23), depression (9 of 16), and anxiety (5 of 10). Cognitive behavioral therapy consistently improved a wide range of outcomes including depression, anxiety, emotional dysregulation, interpersonal problems, and risky behaviors (n = 5).ConclusionsThere is inconsistent evidence to support trauma informed interventions as an effective approach for psychological outcomes. Future trauma informed intervention should be expanded in scope to address a wide range of trauma types such as racism and discrimination. Additionally, a wider range of trauma outcomes should be studied.

Project description:BackgroundRates of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and other forms of adversity among children are high globally, resulting in the development of a number of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address the adverse outcomes stemming from these experiences. Though EBIs are intended to be delivered according to set parameters, these EBIs are frequently adapted. However, little is known about existing adaptations of EBIs for children who experienced PTEs or other adversities. As such, this review aimed to determine: (1) why existing EBIs designed to address PTEs and other adversities experienced by children are adapted, (2) what processes are used to determine what elements should be adapted, and (3) what components of the intervention are adapted.MethodsNine academic databases and publicly available search engines were used to identify academic and grey literature. Initial screening, full-text review, data extraction, and quality determinations were completed by two members of the research team. Data were synthesized narratively for each adapted EBI by research question.ResultsForty-two studies examining the adaptations of nine different EBIs were located, with Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools being the most commonly adapted EBIs. Most frequently, EBIs were adapted to improve fit with a new population and to address cultural factors. Most commonly, researchers in combination with others made decisions about adapting interventions, though frequently who was involved in these decisions was not described. Common content adaptations included the addition of intervention elements and the tailoring/tweaking/refining of intervention materials. Common contextual adaptations included changes to the intended population, changes to the channel of treatment delivery, and changes to who administered the intervention.ConclusionsMost published studies of EBI adaptions have been developed to improve fit and address cultural factors, but little research is available about adaptations made by clinicians in day-to-day practice. Efforts should be made to evaluate the various types of adaptations and especially whether adaptations improve access to services or improve child outcomes in order to ensure that all children exposed to trauma can access effective treatment.Trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was published with PROSPERO (CRD42020149536).

Project description:The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess the clinical level of evidence of commercially available demineralised bone matrix (DBM) products for their use in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery.A total of 17 DBM products were used as search terms in two available databases: Embase and PubMed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement. All articles that reported the clinical use of a DBM-product in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery were included.The literature search resulted in 823 manuscripts of which 64 manuscripts met the final inclusion criteria. The included manuscripts consisted of four randomised controlled trials (level I), eight cohort studies (level III) and 49 case-series (level IV). No clinical studies were found for ten DBM products, and most DBM products were only used in combination with other grafting materials. DBM products were most extensively investigated in spinal surgery, showing limited level I evidence that supports the use Grafton DBM (Osteotech, Eatontown, New Jersey) as a bone graft extender in posterolateral lumbar fusion surgery. DBM products are not thoroughly investigated in trauma surgery, showing mainly level IV evidence that supports the use of Allomatrix (Wright Medical, London, United Kingdom), DBX (DePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland), Grafton DBM, or OrthoBlast (Citagenix Laval, Canada) as bone graft extenders.The clinical level of evidence that supports the use of DBM in trauma and orthopaedic surgery is limited and consists mainly of poor quality and retrospective case-series. More prospective, randomised controlled trials are needed to understand the clinical effect and impact of DBM in trauma and orthopaedic surgery.Cite this article: J. van der Stok, K. A. Hartholt, D. A. L. Schoenmakers, J. J. C. Arts. The available evidence on demineralised bone matrix in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: A systemati c review. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:423-432. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0027.R1.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is one of the major causes of preventable morbidity, mortality, and associated behavioral risks worldwide. Although mobile health (mHealth) interventions can provide consumers with an effective means for self-control of UAU in a timely, ubiquitous, and cost-effective manner, to date, there is a lack of understanding about different health outcomes brought by such interventions. The core components of these interventions are also unclear. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to systematically review and synthesize the research evidence about the efficacy of mHealth interventions on various health outcomes for consumer self-control of UAU and to identify the core components to achieve these outcomes. METHODS:We systematically searched 7 electronic interdisciplinary databases: Scopus, PubMed, PubMed Central, CINAHL Plus with full text, MEDLINE with full text, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES. Search terms and Medical Subject Headings "mHealth," "text message," "SMS," "App," "IVR," "self-control," "self-regulation," "alcohol*," and "intervention" were used individually or in combination to identify peer-reviewed publications in English from 2008 to 2017. We screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text papers as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted from the included papers according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-EHEALTH checklist (V 1.6.1) by 2 authors independently. Data quality was assessed by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis and analyses were conducted following the procedures for qualitative content analysis. Statistical testing was also conducted to test differences among groups of studies. RESULTS:In total, 19 studies were included in the review. Of these 19 studies, 12 (63%) mHealth interventions brought significant positive outcomes in improving participants' health as measured by behavioral (n=11), physiological (n=1), and cognitive indicators (n=1). No significant health outcome was reported in 6 studies (6/19, 32%). Surprisingly, a significant negative outcome was reported for the male participants in the intervention arm in 1 study (1/19, 5%), but no change was found for the female participants. In total, 5 core components reported in the mHealth interventions for consumer self-control of UAU were context, theoretical base, delivery mode, content, and implementation procedure. However, sound evidence is yet to be generated about the role of each component for mHealth success. The health outcomes were similar regardless of types of UAU, deployment setting, with or without nonmobile cointervention, and with or without theory. CONCLUSIONS:Most studies reported mHealth interventions for self-control of UAU appeared to be improving behavior, especially the ones delivered by short message service and interactive voice response systems. Further studies are needed to gather sound evidence about the effects of mHealth interventions on improving physiological and cognitive outcomes as well as the optimal design of these interventions, their implementation, and effects in supporting self-control of UAU.

Project description:BackgroundAcute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.ResultsThe 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.ConclusionDCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.