Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
World J Emerg Surg. 2021 Mar 11;16(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13017-021-00352-5.
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).
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.
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.
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.
尽管损伤控制性手术(damage control surgery,DCS)被广泛认为可以降低重症创伤患者的死亡率,但幸存者通常会遭受严重的发病率,这表明只有在有指征时才应使用 DCS。本系统评价的目的是确定哪些 DCS 适应证有证据表明其可靠和/或有效(因此,在哪些临床情况下,证据支持使用 DCS 或 DCS 可改善结局)。
我们检索了 11 个数据库(1950 年 1 月至 2019 年 4 月 1 日),纳入仅纳入平民创伤患者的研究,并报告了关于 DCS 适应证的可靠性(在特定临床情况下手术决策的一致性)或内容(外科医生将在该临床情况下进行 DCS 或该适应证预测在实践中使用 DCS)、结构(与不良结局相关)或标准(当进行 DCS 而不是确定性手术时与改善结局相关)的证据。
在 34979 篇引文中共纳入 36 项队列研究和 3 项横断面调查。在确定的 59 个 DCS 适应证中,有 10 个具有内容有效性的证据[例如,主要腹部血管损伤或红细胞压积(packed red blood cell,PRBC)体积超过临界输注阈值],9 个具有结构有效性的证据(例如,不稳定的腹部血管和胰腺枪弹伤患者或髂血管损伤和术中酸中毒),6 个具有标准有效性的证据(例如,需要>10 U PRBC 治疗的穿透性创伤患者,同时合并腹部血管和多个腹部内脏损伤或术中低体温、酸中毒或凝血病)。没有研究评估适应证的可靠性。
很少有 DCS 手术或 DCS 干预适应证有证据支持其可靠和/或有效。DCS 应该在考虑其有效性存在不确定性的情况下使用,且只能在无法进行确定性手术的情况下使用。