Background: Management roles for peripheral vascular injuries (PVI) are a source of ongoing debate given the concern for the loss of vascular skills among general surgeons and trauma surgeons (TS). We sought to analyze outcomes of PVI managed by TSs or vascular surgeons (VSs).
Methods: This is a retrospective study of a single, Level I trauma center. Trauma patients with PVI who underwent repair from 2010 to 2021 were included. Patients were separated into groups by the surgical specialty (TS or VS) undertaking the first intervention of the injured vessel.
Results: A total of 194 patients were included, with 101 (52%) PVI managed by TS and 93 (48%) by VS. The TS group had more penetrating injuries (84% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), were more often hypotensive (17% vs. 6%, p = 0.01), and had a higher median Injury Severity Score (10 vs. 9, p < 0.001). Time from arrival to operating room was lower in the TS group (77 vs. 257 minutes, p < 0.01), with no difference in rates of preoperative imaging. The TS group performed damage-control surgery (DCS) more frequently (21% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in reintervention rates between the two groups after excluding patients that required reintervention for definitive repair after DCS (13% vs. 9%, p = 0.34). Mortality was 8% in the TS group and 1% in the VS group ( p = 0.02) with no deaths related to the PVI repair in either group. There was no difference in PVI repair complication rates between the two groups (18% vs. 13%; p = 0.36).
Conclusion: In our collaborative model at a high-volume trauma center, a wide variety of PVI are surgically managed by TS with VS. immediately available for consultation or for definitive repair of more complex vascular injuries. Trauma surgeons performed more DCS on higher acuity patients. No difference in vascular-related complications was detected between groups.
Level of evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.