• Michael Goldenshluger, Hen Chaushu, Guy Ron, Haya Fogel-Grinvald, Shay Mandler, Liron Miller, Nir Horesh, Batia Segal, Uri Rimon, and Yoram Klein.
• Department of Surgery C, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
• Isr Med Assoc J. 2021 Oct 1; 23 (10): 639-645.

BackgroundExtra peritoneal packing (EPP) is a quick and highly effective method to control pelvic hemorrhage.ObjectivesTo determine whether EPP can be as safely and efficiently performed in the emergency department (ED) as in the operating room (OR).MethodsRetrospective study of 29 patients who underwent EPP in the ED or OR in two trauma centers in Israel 2008-2018.ResultsOur study included 29 patients, 13 in the ED-EPP group and 16 in the OR-EPP group. The mean injury severity score (ISS) was 34.9 ± 11.8. Following EPP, hemodynamic stability was successfully achieved in 25 of 29 patients (86.2%). A raise in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) with a median of 25 mmHg (mean 30.0 ± 27.5, P < 0.001) was documented. All patients who did not achieve hemodynamic stability after EPP had multiple sources of bleeding or fatal head injury and eventually succumbed. Patients who underwent EPP in the ED showed higher change in MAP (P = 0.0458). The overall mortality rate was 27.5% (8/29) with no difference between the OR and ED-EPP. No differences were found between ED and OR-EPP in the amount of transfused blood products, surgical site infections, and length of stay in the hospital. However, patients who underwent ED-EPP were more prone to develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT): 50% (5/10) vs. 9% (1/11) in ED and OR-EPP groups respectively (P = 0.038).ConclusionsEPP is equally effective when performed in the ED or OR with similar surgical site infection rates but higher incidence of DVT.

44 keywords...

hide…