Traumatic pancreatic injuries are rare, but their diagnosis and management are challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate and report our experiences with the management of pancreatic injuries.

We identified all adult patients (age >15) with pancreatic injuries from our trauma registry over a 7-year period. Data related to patients’ demographics, diagnoses, operative information, complications, and hospital course were abstracted from the registry and medical records.

A total of 45 patients were evaluated. Most patients had blunt trauma (89%) and 21 patients (47%) had pancreatic injuries of grade 3 or higher. Twenty-eight patients (62%) underwent laparotomy and 17 (38%) received nonoperative management (NOM). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 24% (n=11), and only one patient died after NOM (due to a severe traumatic brain injury). Twenty-two patients (79%) underwent emergency laparotomy and six (21%) underwent delayed laparotomy. A drainage procedure was performed in 12 patients (43%), and pancreatectomy was performed in 16 patients (57%) (distal pancreatectomy [DP], n=8; DP with spleen preservation, n=5; pancreaticoduodenectomy, n=2; total pancreatectomy, n=1). Fourteen (31%) pancreas-specific complications occurred, and all complications were successfully managed without surgery. Solid organ injuries (n=14) were the most common type of associated abdominal injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3).

For traumatic pancreatic injuries, an appropriate treatment method should be considered after evaluation of the accompanying injury and the patient’s hemodynamic status. NOM can be performed without mortality in appropriately selected cases.

Trauma is the top cause of death in people under 45 years of age. Deaths from severe trauma can have a negative economic impact due to the loss of people belonging to socio-economically active age groups. Therefore, efforts to reduce the mortality rate of trauma patients are essential. The purpose of this study was to investigate preventable mortality in trauma patients and to identify factors and healthcare-related challenges affecting mortality. Ultimately, these findings will help to improve the quality of trauma care.

We analyzed the deaths of 411 severe trauma patients who presented to Gachon University Gil Hospital regional trauma center in South Korea from January 2015 to December 2017, using an expert panel review.

The preventable death rate of trauma patients treated at the Gachon University Gil Hospital regional trauma center was 8.0%. Of these, definitely preventable deaths comprised 0.5% and potentially preventable deaths 7.5%. The leading cause of death in trauma patients was traumatic brain injury. Treatment errors most commonly occurred in the intensive care unit (ICU). The most frequent management error was delayed treatment of bleeding.

Most errors in the treatment of trauma patients occurred in early stages of the treatment process and in the ICU. By identifying the main causes of preventable death and errors during the course of treatment, our research will help to reduce the preventable death rate. Appropriate trauma care systems and ongoing education are also needed to reduce preventable deaths from trauma.

There is increasing evidence in the literature regarding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) globally, but few cases have been reported in Korea. We aimed to describe our experience of successful Zone III REBOA and to discuss its algorithm, techniques, and related complications.

We reviewed consecutive cases who survived from hypovolemic shock after Zone III REBOA placement for 4 years. We reviewed patients’ baseline characteristics, physiological status, procedural data, and outcomes.

REBOA was performed in 44 patients during the study period, including 10 patients (22.7%) who underwent Zone III REBOA, of whom seven (70%) survived. Only one patient was injured by a penetrating mechanism and survived after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All patients underwent interventions to stop bleeding immediately after REBOA placement.

This case series suggests that Zone III REBOA is a safe and feasible procedure that could be applied to traumatic shock patients with normal FAST findings who receive a chest X-ray examination at the initial resuscitation.

Immediate post-laparotomy hypotension (PLH) is a precipitous drop in blood pressure caused by a sudden release of abdominal tamponade after laparotomy in cases of severe hemoperitoneum. The effect of laparotomy on blood pressure in patients with significant hemoperitoneum is unknown.

In total, 163 patients underwent laparotomy for trauma from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015. Exclusion criteria included the following: negative laparotomy, only a hollow viscous injury, and hemoperitoneum <1,000 mL. After applying those criteria, 62 patients were enrolled in this retrospective review. PLH was defined as a decrease in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥10 mmHg within 10 minutes after laparotomy.

The mean estimated hemoperitoneum was 3,516 mL. The incidence of PLH was 23% (14 of 62 patients). The MAP did not show significant differences before and after laparotomy (5 minutes post-laparotomy, 67.5±16.5 vs. 68.3±18.8 mmHg; p=0.7; 10 minutes post-laparotomy, 67.5±16.5 vs. 70.4±18.8 mmHg; p=0.193). The overall in-hospital mortality was 24% (15 of 62 patients). Mortality was not significantly higher in the PLH group (two of 14 [14.3%] vs. 13 of 48 [27.1%]; p=0.33). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed in the intensive care unit and hospital stay.

PLH may be less frequent and less devastating than it is often considered. Surgical hemostasis during laparotomy is important. Laparotomy with adequate resuscitation may explain the equivalent outcomes in the two groups.

Accurate and appropriate prehospital field triage is essential for a trauma system. The Korean trauma system (established in 2014) uses the trauma field triage algorithm of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This study evaluated the suitability of the CDC field triage criteria for major trauma cases (injury severity score >15) in Korea.

This retrospective cohort study evaluated trauma patients who presented at the authors’ regional trauma center from January 1 to May 7, 2017. The undertriage and overtriage rates of each CDC field triage step were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated for each step.

Among the 1,009 enrolled patients, 168 (16.7%) had major trauma. The undertriage/overtriage rates of each step (steps I, II, III, and IV) of CDC field triage were 9.2%/47.4%, 6.3%/50.8%, 4.5%/59.4%, and 5.3%/78.9%, respectively. The AUC values of each CDC triage step were 0.722, 0.783, 0.791, and 0.615, respectively. The AUC values of the separate components of each step (physiologic criteria, anatomic criteria, mechanism-of-injury criteria, and special considerations) were 0.722, 0.648, 0.647, and 0.456, respectively.

The CDC field triage system is acceptable, but not ideal, for Korean trauma care. If we follow the protocol, it would be preferable to omit step IV. The Korean Triage and Acuity Scale may be a good indicator for in-hospital triage. However, a new triage protocol that is simple to estimate on-scene while having good performance should be developed.

We aimed to evaluate the trauma volume and performance indicators during the first 5-year period of operation in a single regional trauma center.

We analyzed prospectively collected data from the Korean Trauma Data Bank for a single regional trauma center between January 2014 and December 2018. More than 250 variables were analyzed. We calculated the predicted survival rates using the trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) method.

In total, there were 16,103 trauma admissions during the first 5 years; trauma activation was performed in 5,105 of these cases. Over 70% of the patients were men, and most of the admitted patients were within the age groups of 55–59 years for men and 75–79 years for women. Analyses were performed considering two patient groups: the total patient group and the group of those with severe trauma (injury severity score [ISS] >15). The median ISS, revised trauma score, and TRISS of the two groups were 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4–10), 22 (IQR 17–27), and 7.6±0.99 and 6.74±1.9, 0.95±0.13, 0.81±2.67, respectively. Of the total patient group, 801 patients (5%) died in the hospital, whereas of the group of patients with ISS >15, 526 (19.5%) died. The direct transportation of patients to the regional trauma center increased year by year. The emergency room stay time and time to entering the operating room showed a decrease until 2017; however, these parameters increased again in 2018.

The trauma volume in the regional trauma center is appropriate, and some improvements could be observed after its establishment. However, performance indicators reveal the prematurity of the trauma center and its potential for further improvements. Moreover, the development of a national trauma system, beyond regional trauma centers, is required.

Blunt injury accounts for 80?95% of renal injury trauma in the United States. The majority of blunt renal injuries are low grade and 80?85% of these injuries can be managed conservatively. However, there is a debate on the management of patients with high-grade renal injury. We reviewed our experience of renal trauma at our trauma center to assess management strategy for high-grade blunt renal injury.

We reviewed blunt renal injury cases admitted at a single trauma center between August 2007 and December 2015. Computed tomography (CT) scan was used to diagnose renal injuries and high?grade (according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma [AAST] organ injury scale III?V) renal injury patients were included in the analysis.

During the eight?year study period, there were 62 AAST grade III?V patients. 5 cases underwent nephrectomy and 57 underwent non-operative management (NOM). There was no difference in outcome between the operative group and the NOM group. In the NOM group, 24 cases underwent angioembolization with a 91% success rate. The Incidence of urological complications correlated with increasing grade.

Conservative management of high-grade blunt renal injury was considered preferable to operative management, with an increased renal salvage rate. However, high-grade injuries have higher complication rates, and therefore, close observation is recommended after conservative management.

The optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) measured by ultrasonography is among the indicators of intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation. However, whether ONSD measurement is useful for initial treatment remains controversial. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between ONSD measured by computed tomography (CT) and ICP in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

A total of 246 patients with severe trauma from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2015 were included in the study. A total of 179 patients with brain damage with potential for ICP elevation were included in the TBI group. The remaining 67 patients comprised the non-TBI group. A comparison was made between the two groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of ONSD when used as a screening test for the TBI group including those with TBI with midline shift (with elevated ICP).

The mean injury severity score (ISS) and glasgow coma scale (GCS) of all patients were 24.2±6.1 and 5.4±0.8, respectively. The mean ONSD of the TBI group (5.5±1.0 mm) was higher than that of the non-TBI group (4.7±0.6 mm). Some significant differences in age (55.3±18.1 vs. 49.0±14.8, p<0.001), GCS (11.7±4.1 versus 13.3±3.0, p<0.001), and ONSD (5.5±1.0 vs. 4.7±0.6, p<0.001) were observed between the TBI and the non-TBI group. An ROC analysis was used to assess the correlation between TBI and ONSD. Results showed an area under the ROC curve (AUC) value of 0.752. The same analysis was used in the TBI with midline shift group, which showed an AUC of 0.912.

An ONSD of >5.5 mm, measured on CT, is a good indicator of ICP elevation. However, since an ONSD is not sensitive enough to detect an increased ICP, it should only be used as one of the parameters in detecting ICP along with other screening tests.