Login
Site Search
Subscribe
Modify
Home >
List Archives
Damage Control Surgery
Matthew Reeds mgreeds at reeds.uk.comSun Sep 16 14:15:32 BST 2007
- Previous message: NFL player recoverey
- Next message: trauma-list Digest, Vol 51, Issue 25
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I considered this some time ago when deliberating about the relevance/indications for Damage Control Surgery (DCS). Indeed, I am a great believer in both the role and benefits of DCS. Yesterday marked the end of another of our faculty's 3 day trauma course; during which the concept, principles and reasoning behind DCS is taught (unfortunately, due to course time restraints, we are only able to introduce the very basics of DCS to candidates.) I was somewhat surprised at the substantial number of candidates who were unaware of the existence of DCS, despite the time period in which it has been in existence (the candidates were surgeons, anaesthetists, intensivists and emergency physicians.) This is no doubt a failing of the system within which we work and the slow pace that new advances/techniques are adopted by clinicians within the NHS framework. In the U.K., much of the work and benefit of DCS has been pioneered by the experiences and teachings of the Royal London Hospital Trauma Service (a very well known and highly regarded service) and, without them, I believe that we would be experiencing a much greater incidence of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients - in which prolonged primary definitive procedures would otherwise be inappropriately performed. 1. Are we all applying damage control, open abdomen techniques, etc. too often? Whilst only commenting on the local practice in my region, I do not believe that we are applying DCS too often here in the UK. In fact, I do not believe that we are applying it enough. Perhaps people in other parts of the world have different experiences or have seen different outcomes? 2. Are we increasing the number of enteric fistulas, use of expensive secondary closure meshes and devices far too often? I have seen an increased number of enteric fistulas - but only with numerous procedures/laparostomies and repeated take backs to theatre (not statistically significant evidence!) I have not seen an increase in the requirements to use secondary closure meshes. 3. Is there a need to return to a swinging back of a pendulum? In my personal opinion, I would have to say that DCS is increasingly being disseminated and I am not aware of any individuals here in the U.K. who have experiences of the pendulum having swung too far (as yet!) but I am not best placed to comment upon this. Do others have any such experiences? I agree it would be wrong to move too far and inappropriately apply DCS when a primary definitive procedure is in the patient's best interests - but this would only be achieved by clinicians applying sound CLINICAL judgment [as they indeed ought to anyway] and not merely follow protocols or the latest vogue (as many hospitals would have us perform.) I still perform primary definitive procedures on stable trauma patients in which DCS is not required/appropriate. Any other views?? Matthew
- Previous message: NFL player recoverey
- Next message: trauma-list Digest, Vol 51, Issue 25
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the trauma-list mailing list
