Randomized controlled clinical trial of point-of-care, limited ultrasonography for trauma in the emergency department: the first sonography outcomes assessment program trial. Colorectal trauma: primary repair or anastomosis with intracolonic bypass vs. ostomy. A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial to assess the effect of Doppler optimized intraoperative fluid management on outcome following radical cystectomy. Abdominal incisions: transverse vs vertical placement and continuous vs interrupted closure. Increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the evaluation of the blunt abdominal trauma patient with the use of ultrasound. Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 5-year results of a randomized controlled study. A prospective, randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Elective colon and rectal surgery without nasogastric decompression. A prospective, randomized trial.
Annually, 38 million people are evaluated for trauma, the leading cause of death in persons younger than 45 years. The primary objective is to assess whether using a protocol inclusive of point-of-care, limited ultrasonography (PLUS), compared to usual care (control), among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected torso trauma decreased time to operative care.
                The study was a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted during a 6-month period at 2 Level I trauma centers. The intervention was PLUS conducted by verified clinician sonographers. The primary outcome measure was time from ED arrival to transfer to operative care; secondary outcomes included computed tomography (CT) use, length of stay, complications, and charges. Regression models controlled for confounders and analyzed physician-to-physician variability. All analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Results are presented as mean, first-quartile, median, and third-quartile, with multiplicative change and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or percentage with odds ratio and 95% CIs.
                Four hundred forty-four patients with suspected torso trauma were eligible; 136 patients lacked consent, and attending physicians refused enrollment of 46 patients. Two hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled: 135 PLUS patients and 127 controls. There were no important differences between groups. Time to operative care was 64% (48, 76) less for PLUS compared to control patients. PLUS patients underwent fewer CTs (odds ratio 0.16) (0.07, 0.32), spent 27% (1, 46) fewer days in hospital, and had fewer complications (odds ratio 0.16) (0.07, 0.32), and charges were 35% (19, 48) less compared to control.
                A PLUS-inclusive protocol significantly decreased time to operative care in patients with suspected torso trauma, with improved resource use and lower charges. This prospective, randomized, controlled study was undertaken to compare primary repair or anastomosis with intracolonic bypass vs. ostomy in severe colon and intraperitoneal rectal injury. Patients were randomized at surgery following confirmation of injury. Data collected included demographics, mechanism and location of injury, trauma score (TS), injury severity score (ISS), penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI), complications, length of hospital stay, and hospital charges. Twenty-two patients were studied: 11 with intracolonic bypass and 11 controls. The experimental and control groups were statistically similar in demographics and mechanism of injury, severity of injury (TS = 13.8 vs. 12.8; ISS = 27.5 vs. 24.2; PATI = 40.5 vs. 35.0), and complication rate. Length of stay (12.2 days vs. 20.7 days) and charges $27,885 vs. $53,599) tended to be greater in controls, and the comparison did not include subsequent colostomy closure. This study supports intracolonic bypass as a safe alternative to ostomy in severe colon and intraperitoneal rectal trauma. Cardiovascular optimization via esophageal Doppler can minimize gastrointestinal hypoperfusion, reducing the risk of multiple organ dysfunction and postoperative complications during major surgery. We assessed the effect of esophageal Doppler guided cardiovascular optimization in patients undergoing radical cystectomy.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial at a United Kingdom teaching hospital between 2006 and 2009. A total of 66 patients were randomized to a control arm (34) and an intervention arm (32). The control group received standard intraoperative fluids. The intervention group received (additional) Doppler guided fluid. Primary outcomes were markers of gastrointestinal morbidity such as ileus, flatus and bowel opening. Secondary outcomes were postoperative nausea and vomiting, wound infection and operative intravenous fluid volumes (total and hourly).
                There were significant reductions in the control and intervention arms in the incidence of ileus (18 vs 7, p <0.001), flatus (5.36 vs 3.55 days, p <0.01) and bowel opening (9.79 vs 6.53 days, p = 0.02), respectively. Nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced in the study group at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (11 vs 3, p <0.01 and 13 vs 1, p <0.0001). Wound infection rates were significantly reduced (8 vs 1 superficial, p <0.01 and 10 vs 2 combined, p <0.01). Study patients received significantly higher volumes (ml/kg per minute) of intravenous fluid (0.19 vs 0.23, p <0.01) related to a significantly higher volume (ml/kg) in the first hour of surgery (14.1 vs 21.0, p = 0.0001).
                Cardiovascular optimization using esophageal Doppler significantly improved postoperative markers of gastrointestinal function.
                Copyright Â© 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. A previous retrospective review of 2,006 emergency laparotomies had suggested that anesthesia and operative times could be reduced by using a continuous stitch closure for all layers of the incision. A prospective, randomized study was then implemented through use of odd/even digits in the last and next-to-last digits in the hospital number. Of 551 patients subjected to laparotomy because of abdominal trauma, no intraperitoneal injury was found in 212. There was no statistically significant difference in time expended or complications (wound or other, including pulmonary) on contrasting transverse (101) with vertical (111) incisions, or on comparing continuous (104) and interrupted (108) closure, with the exception of an average 26 minutes in time saved by a continuous suture (P = .02). Analysis of these same factors in 339 patients with trauma found at laparotomy could document no statistically significant difference. Such data support the use of a running suture for closure of the abdominal wall as a practical method to save anesthesia and operating time without increased risk of developing a wound or other postoperative complication. The efficacy and effectiveness of ultrasound (US) in evaluating patients suspected of having blunt abdominal trauma are near that of computed tomography (CT) and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL). Because no cost-effectiveness study has been reported, the purpose of this study was to demonstrate that US is more efficient and cost-effective than CT/DPL in evaluating blunt abdominal trauma. Over a 9-month period, 331 patients suspected of sustaining blunt abdominal trauma were evaluated at a Level I trauma center by US, CT, and/or DPL. Cost data and time to disposition were determined for analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US were similar to those reported in previous studies. There was a significant difference in time to disposition with the US group being significantly lower (P = 0.001). The total procedural cost was 2.8 times greater for the CT/DPL group than for the US group. US is not only effective in diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma, but it is also more efficient and cost-effective than is CT/DPL. From family medical practices 15775 men and women aged 65-80 years were identified and randomized into two groups: one group was invited for ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the other acted as age- and sex-matched controls. Of the 7887 invited for screening 5394 (68.4 per cent) accepted. AAA was detected in 218 (4.0 per cent overall and 7.6 per cent of men). Aortic surgery was offered to the screened group if certain criteria were met and no patient died from rupture who was fit for operation and accepted elective treatment. The incidence of rupture was reduced by 55 per cent in men in the group invited for screening, compared with controls. The incidence of rupture in women was low in both groups. The purpose of the study was to determine whether early postoperative enteral feeding with an immune-enhancing formula (IEF) decreases morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.
                Early enteral feeding with an IEF has been associated with improved outcome in trauma and critical care patients. Evaluable data documenting reduced complications after major upper GI surgery for malignancy with early enteral feeding are limited.
                Between March 1994 and August 1996, 195 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of esophageal (n = 23), gastric (n = 75), peripancreatic (n = 86), or bile duct (n = 11) cancer underwent resection and were randomized to IEF via jejunostomy tube or control (CNTL). Tube feedings were supplemented with arginine, RNA, and omega-3 fatty acids, begun on postoperative 1, and advanced to a goal of 25 kcal/kg per day. The CNTL involved intravenous crystalloid solutions. Statistical analysis was by t test, chi square, or logistic regression.
                Patient demographics, nutritional status, and operative factors were similar between the groups. Caloric intake was 61% and 22% of goal for the IEF and CNTL groups, respectively. The IEF group received significantly more protein, carbohydrate, lipids and immune-enhancing nutrients than did the CNTL group. There were no significant differences in the number of minor, major, or infectious wound complications between the groups. There was one bowel necrosis associated with IEF requiring reoperation. Hospital mortality was 2.5% and median length of hospital stay was 11 days, which was not different between the groups.
                Early enteral feeding with an IEF was not beneficial and should not be used in a routine fashion after surgery for upper GI malignancies. To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice.
                This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999.
                Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths.
                Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy. Nasogastric (NG) decompression after colorectal surgery is practiced commonly. Our aim was to determine whether routine NG decompression benefitted patients undergoing this type of surgery. Five hundred thirty-five patients were randomized prospectively to either NG decompression or no decompression. Stratification was by type of operation and patient age. Excluded were patients who had emergency surgery with peritonitis, extensive fibrous adhesions, enterotomies, previous pelvic irradiation, intra-abdominal infection, pancreatitis, chronic obstruction. prolonged operating times, or difficult endotracheal intubation. Two hundred seventy-four patients received NG decompression (Salem sump, Argyle Co., Division of Sherwood Medical, St. Louis, MO) and two hundred sixty-one did not. There were 33 protocol violations included in the 535 patients. Patients who were not decompressed experienced significantly more abdominal distention, nausea, and vomiting than did those patients who were. Moreover, 13% required subsequent NG decompression as opposed to a reinsertion rate of 5% for patients routinely decompressed. The mean length of hospitalization for both groups was 11 days. There were no significant differences in nasopharyngeal or gastric bleeding, inability to cough effectively, respiratory infections, wound disruptions, reoperation, and wound infection rates (5%) between the two groups. We conclude that even though there is an increase in the rate of minor symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention, routine nasgastric decompression is not warranted after elective colon and rectal surgery.
Based on the findings of one study involving 51 participants, which was at moderate risk of bias, there is no evidence to support the use of surgery over observation for people with abdominal trauma.