Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the 36 cohort studies included in the systematic review

From: Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review

Source

Prospective

No. centers

Country

Trauma Patients

No. indications

No.

Mean age, yr.

% blunt MOI

Mean ISS Score

Predominant trauma surgical intervention(s) performeda (%)

Watson et al. 2017 [15]

Yes

12

U.S.A.

329

32.0b

42

26.0b

DC laparotomy (65) or definitive surgery (35)

2

Harvin et al. 2016 [38]

No

1

U.S.A.

222

33.6

66

28.7

DC (65) or definitive (35) laparotomy

6

Savage et al. 2014 [39]

No

1

U.S.A.

169

40.2

65

NISS, 21.1

DC (22) or definitive (78) laparotomy

2

Ordoñez et al. 2014 [40]

No

1

Colombia

36

26b

0

25b

DC (81) or definitive (19) laparotomy for complex penetrating duodenal injuries

1

Mahmood et al. 2014 [41]

Yes

1

Qatar

117

35

92

23

DC (13) or definitive (87) laparotomy

5

Thompson et al. 2013 [42]

No

1

U.S.A.

15

29b

33

35d

DC laparotomy with or without the first stage of a Whipple procedure (80) versus a complete Whipple procedure at the index operation (20)

1

Rice et al. 2012 [43]

Yes

100

26 countries

556

38.1

85

NR

DC or definitive surgery (percentages unclear)

3

Martin et al. 2012 [14]

No

1

U.S.A.

628

34.5

45

17.8

DC (10) or definitive (90) laparotomy

3

Chinnery et al. 2012 [44]

No

1

South Africa

219

26b

0

NR

DC (20) or definitive (80) laparotomy

1

Mayberry et al. 2011 [45]

No

1

U.S.A.

41

34

46

24

DC (61) or definitive (39) laparotomy for full-thickness duodenal lacerations

1

Liu et al. 2011 [24]

No

1

China

104

31.1

84

NR

DC (44) or definitive (56) laparotomy

4

Leppäniemi et al. 2011 [46]

No

2

Finland

144

33

94

31

DC (15) or definitive (20) laparotomy for major liver injury

1

Timmermans et al. 2010 [47]

No

1

South Africa

74

28

19

NR

DC laparotomy (100)

3

Matsumoto et al. 2010 [48]

No

1

Japan

34

51.9

97

35.6

DC laparotomy (100)c

6

Kairinos et al. 2010 [49]

No

1

South Africa

145

NR

NR

NR

DC laparotomy (100)

1

Yu et al. 2009 [25]

No

1

China

90

NR

NR

35

DC (50) or definitive (50) surgery

7

Kashuk et al. 2008 [50]

No

1

U.S.A.

133

34.9

NR

35.9

NR

4

MacKenzie et al. 2004 [51]

No

1

Canada

37

NR

84

NR

Laparotomy with early therapeutic perihepatic packing followed by angioembolization (19) or definitive laparotomy (81) for AAST grade IV-V liver injuriesd

1

Asensio et al. 2004 [52]

Mixed

1

U.S.A.

139

33.2

28

24.0

DC laparotomy (100)

6

Aucar et al. 2003 [53]

Yes

1

U.S.A.

31

NR

NR

NR

DC (23) or definitive (77) operative techniques for patients with chest, abdomen, or extremity vessel injuries

3

Asensio et al. 2003 [54]

No

1

U.S.A.

148

27.0

5

20.0

DC (18) or definitive (82) laparotomy for iliac vessel injuries

4

Hirshberg et al. 2002 [55]

Mixed

1

U.S.A.

346

NR

0

NR

DC (16) or definitive (84) laparotomy

2

Apartsin et al. 2002 [23]

No

1

Russia

150

NR

NR

NR

DC (51) or definitive (49) laparotomy

2

Asensio et al. 2001 [56]

No

1

U.S.A.

548

30

18

32

DC laparotomy (100)

6

Krishna et al. 1998 [57]

No

1

New Zealand

40

38.2

NR

>35

Definitive thoracotomy (10) and/or laparotomy (93)

3

Carrillo et al. 1998 [58]

No

1

U.S.A.

64

36

0

NR

DC (22) or definitive (78) laparotomy for iliac vessel injuries

6

Cushman et al. 1997 [59]

No

1

U.S.A.

53

29

5

NR

DC (17) or definitive (83) laparotomy for iliac vessel injuries

6

Cosgriff et al. 1997 [60]

Yes

1

U.S.A.

58

35.4

47

30.6

DC (31) or definitive (69) laparotomy

4

Garrison et al. 1996 [61]

No

1

U.S.A.

70

41

70

35.3

DC laparotomy with therapeutic intra-abdominal packing (100)

7

Rotondo et al. 1993 [62]

No

1

U.S.A.

46

31.0

0

23.6

DC (52) or definitive (48) laparotomy

1

Sharp and Locicero 1992 [63]

No

1

U.S.A.

39

33.9

80

37.9

DC laparotomy with therapeutic intra-abdominal packing (100)

6

Rutherford et al. 1992 [64]

No

1

U.S.A.

3038

NR

85

NR

NR

3

Burch et al. 1992 [65]

No

1

U.S.A.

200

31

15

NR

DC laparotomy (100)

2

Cué et al. 1990 [66]

No

1

U.S.A.

35

35

71

41

Laparotomy (100) with packing of major liver injuries (89) or severe retroperitoneal hemorrhage (11)

1

Carmona et al. 1984 [67]

No

1

U.S.A.

31

30e

53e

NR

Laparotomy with perihepatic packing (55) or simple repair (45) of major liver injuries (55)

1

Stone et al. 1983 [68]

No

1

U.S.A.

31

28

6

NR

DC (55) or definitive (45) laparotomy

1

  1. Where AAST indicates American Association for the Surgery of Trauma; d, day(s); DC, damage control; ED, Emergency Department; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; intraop, intraoperative; ISS, Injury Severity Scale; MSK, musculoskeletal/extremity; NA, not applicable; NISS, New Injury Severity Scale score; NR, not reported; OR, operating room; preop, preoperative; pro, prospective; ret, retrospective; RR, response rate; TAC, temporary abdominal closure; and yr, years.
  2. aExcluding orthopedic and neurological surgery
  3. bValue represents a median instead of a mean
  4. cIn this study, 16 (47%) of the 34 patients who underwent DC laparotomy had their procedure performed in the ED
  5. dIn this study 15 of the patients in the definitive laparotomy group were reported to ultimately need abdominal packing after conventional hepatic injury repair techniques. Moreover, 1 patient in the early therapeutic packing group received angiography before laparotomy
  6. eEstimate relates to the 17 patients who were managed with therapeutic perihepatic packing