Browsing by Author "Roberts, Derek J."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (BioMed Central, 2014-01-04) Roberts, Derek J.; Leigh-Smith, Simon; Faris, Peter D.; Ball, Chad G.; Robertson, Helen Lee; Blackmore, Christopher; Dixon, Elijah; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W.; Kortbeek, John B.; Stelfox, Henry Thomas
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review
    (2021-03-11) Roberts, Derek J.; Bobrovitz, Niklas; Zygun, David A.; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W.; Ball, Chad G.; Faris, Peter D.; Stelfox, Henry T.
    Abstract Background 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). Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    High Mobility Group Box-1 Protein and Outcomes in Critically Ill Surgical Patients Requiring Open Abdominal Management
    (2017-02-14) Malig, Michelle S.; Jenne, Craig N.; Ball, Chad G.; Roberts, Derek J.; Xiao, Zhengwen; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W.
    Background. Previous studies assessing various cytokines in the critically ill/injured have been uninformative in terms of translating to clinical care management. Animal abdominal sepsis work suggests that enhanced intraperitoneal (IP) clearance of Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMPs) improves outcome. Thus measuring the responses of DAMPs offers alternate potential insights and a representative DAMP, High Mobility Group Box-1 protein (HMGB-1), was considered. While IP biomediators are being recognized in critical illness/trauma, HMGB-1 behaviour has not been examined in open abdomen (OA) management. Methods. A modified protocol for HMGB-1 detection was used to examine plasma/IP fluid samples from 44 critically ill/injured OA patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing two negative pressure peritoneal therapies (NPPT): Active NPPT (ANPPT) and Barker’s Vacuum Pack NPPT (BVP). Samples were collected and analyzed at the time of laparotomy and at 24 and 48 hours after. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in survivor versus nonsurvivor HMGB-1 plasma or IP concentrations at baseline, 24 hours, or 48 hours. However, plasma HMGB-1 levels tended to increase continuously in the BVP cohort. Conclusions. HMGB-1 appeared to behave differently between NPPT cohorts. Further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship of HMGB-1 and outcomes in septic/injured patients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial
    (2023-05-11) Kirkpatrick, Andrew W.; Coccolini, Federico; Tolonen, Matti; Minor, Samuel; Catena, Fausto; Gois, Emanuel; Doig, Christopher J.; Hill, Michael D.; Ansaloni, Luca; Chiarugi, Massimo; Tartaglia, Dario; Ioannidis, Orestis; Sugrue, Michael; Colak, Elif; Hameed, S. M.; Lampela, Hanna; Agnoletti, Vanni; McKee, Jessica L.; Garraway, Naisan; Sartelli, Massimo; Ball, Chad G.; Parry, Neil G.; Voght, Kelly; Julien, Lisa; Kroeker, Jenna; Roberts, Derek J.; Faris, Peter; Tiruta, Corina; Moore, Ernest E.; Ammons, Lee A.; Anestiadou, Elissavet; Bendinelli, Cino; Bouliaris, Konstantinos; Carroll, Rosemarry; Ceresoli, Marco; Favi, Francesco; Gurrado, Angela; Rezende-Neto, Joao; Isik, Arda; Cremonini, Camilla; Strambi, Silivia; Koukoulis, Georgios; Testini, Mario; Trpcic, Sandy; Pasculli, Alessandro; Picariello, Erika; Abu-Zidan, Fikri; Adeyeye, Ademola; Augustin, Goran; Alconchel, Felipe; Altinel, Yuksel; Hernandez Amin, Luz A.; Aranda-Narváez, José M.; Baraket, Oussama; Biffl, Walter L.; Baiocchi, Gian L.; Bonavina, Luigi; Brisinda, Giuseppe; Cardinali, Luca; Celotti, Andrea; Chaouch, Mohamed; Chiarello, Maria; Costa, Gianluca; de’Angelis, Nicola; De Manzini, Nicolo; Delibegovic, Samir; Di Saverio, Salomone; De Simone, Belinda; Dubuisson, Vincent; Fransvea, Pietro; Garulli, Gianluca; Giordano, Alessio; Gomes, Carlos; Hayati, Firdaus; Huang, Jinjian; Ibrahim, Aini F.; Huei, Tan J.; Jailani, Ruhi F.; Khan, Mansoor; Luna, Alfonso P.; Malbrain, Manu L. N. G.; Marwah, Sanjay; McBeth, Paul; Mihailescu, Andrei; Morello, Alessia; Mulita, Francesk; Murzi, Valentina; Mohammad, Ahmad T.; Parmar, Simran; Pak, Ajay; Wong, Michael P.; Pantalone, Desire; Podda, Mauro; Puccioni, Caterina; Rasa, Kemal; Ren, Jianan; Roscio, Francesco; Gonzalez-Sanchez, Antonio; Sganga, Gabriele; Scheiterle, Maximilian; Slavchev, Mihail; Smirnov, Dmitry; Tosi, Lorenzo; Trivedi, Anand; Vega, Jaime A. G.; Waledziak, Maciej; Xenaki, Sofia; Winter, Desmond; Wu, Xiuwen; Zakaria, Andee D.; Zakaria, Zaidi
    Abstract Background Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study. Methods The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer. Discussion OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of “damage control”; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention. Trial registration: National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Variation in use of damage control laparotomy for trauma by trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia
    (2021-10-14) Roberts, Derek J.; Faris, Peter D.; Ball, Chad G.; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W.; Moore, Ernest E.; Feliciano, David V.; Rhee, Peter; D’Amours, Scott; Stelfox, Henry T.
    Abstract Background It is unknown how frequently damage control (DC) laparotomy is used across trauma centers in different countries. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to study variations in use of the procedure and predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy. Methods A self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia was conducted. The survey collected information about trauma center and program characteristics. It also asked how often the trauma program director estimated DC laparotomy was performed on injured patients at that center on average over the last year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of a higher reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy. Results Of the 366 potentially eligible trauma centers sent the survey, 199 (51.8%) trauma program directors or leaders responded [United States = 156 (78.4%), Canada = 26 (13.1%), and Australasia = 17 (8.5%)]. The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. DC laparotomy was used more frequently in level-1 than level-2 or -3 trauma centers. Further, high-volume level-1 centers used DC laparotomy significantly more often than lower volume level-1 centers (p = 0.02). Nearly half (48.4%) of high-volume volume level-1 trauma centers reported using the procedure at least once weekly. Significant adjusted predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy included country of origin [odds ratio (OR) for the United States vs. Canada = 7.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–40.27], level-1 verification status (OR = 6.02; 95% CI 2.01–18.06), and the assessment of a higher number of severely injured (Injury Severity Scale score > 15) patients (OR per-100 patients = 1.62; 95% CI 1.20–2.18) and patients with penetrating injuries (OR per-5% increase = 1.27; 95% CI 1.01–1.58) in the last year. Conclusions The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. Those centers that most need to evaluate the benefit-to-risk ratio of using DC laparotomy in different scenarios may include high-volume, level-1 trauma centers, particularly those that often manage penetrating injuries.