Mohseni, Shahin

Background Studies have shown an increased risk of morbidity in elderly patients suffering rib fractures from blunt trauma. The association between frailty and rib fractures on adverse outcomes is still ill-defined. In the current investigation, we sought to delineate the association between frailty, measured using the Orthopedic Frailty Score (OFS), and outcomes in geriatric patients with isolated rib fractures. Methods All geriatric (aged 65 years or older) patients registered in the 2013–2019 Trauma Quality Improvement database with a conservatively managed isolated rib fracture were considered for inclusion. An isolated rib fracture was defined as the presence of ≥1 rib fracture, a thorax Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) between 1 and 5, an AIS ≤1 in all other regions, as well as the absence of pneumothorax, hemothorax, or pulmonary contusion. Based on patients’ OFS, patients were classified as non-frail (OFS 0), pre-frail (OFS 1), or frail (OFS ≥2). The prevalence ratio (PR) of composite complications, in-hospital mortality, failure-to-rescue (FTR), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission between the OFS groups was determined using Poisson regression models to adjust for potential confounding. Results A total of 65 375 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria of whom 60% were non-frail, 29% were pre-frail, and 11% were frail. There was a stepwise increased risk of complications, in-hospital mortality, and FTR from non-frail to pre-frail and frail. Compared with non-frail patients, frail patients exhibited a 87% increased risk of in-hospital mortality [adjusted PR (95% CI): 1.87 (1.52-2.31), p<0.001], a 44% increased risk of complications [adjusted PR (95% CI): 1.44 (1.23-1.67), p<0.001], a doubling in the risk of FTR [adjusted PR (95% CI): 2.08 (1.45-2.98), p<0.001], and a 17% increased risk of ICU admission [adjusted PR (95% CI): 1.17 (1.11-1.23), p<0.001]. Conclusion There is a strong association between frailty, measured using the OFS, and adverse outcomes in geriatric patients managed conservatively for rib fractures.

AbstractBackgroundThis is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care.MethodsExperts in management of the high‐risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations.ResultsComponents of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process.ConclusionsThese guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end‐of‐life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high‐risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Abstract Background This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra‐ and postoperative aspects of care. Methods Experts in aspects of management of high‐risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS ® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS ® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. Results Twenty‐three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. Conclusions These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS ® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high‐risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Abstract Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high‐risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. Methods Experts in aspects of management of the high‐risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non‐emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1—Preoperative Care and Part 2—Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. Results Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. Conclusions These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high‐risk patients.