CHAPTER 81 COMMON ERRORS IN TRAUMA CARE
Errors in management occur frequently in medicine. A recent Institute of Medicine report estimated that 44,000–98,000 deaths each year were caused by medical errors. This represents more deaths in the United States each year than are caused by breast cancer or AIDS. Most of these errors occur in low-intensity, nonemergent scenarios. Obviously, trauma care is a much more difficult setting to perform in an errorless fashion. Care of injured patients must occur in an emergent fashion. Decisions must be made rapidly, based on limited information. In many instances, interventions must be initiated before a complete evaluation is performed. Frequently, the history of the mechanism of injury is obscure, or injured patients involved with criminal activities may mislead the trauma team. Moreover, injured patients are frequently unresponsive, have a decreased level of consciousness, or are uncooperative due to intoxication. Seriously injured patients frequently present with multiple injuries that require the involvement of multiple providers. Routinely, numerous surgeons, surgical subspecialists, emergency medicine physicians, and residents must accurately communicate and coordinate care for an optimal outcome. The list of potential causes for errors in trauma care is infinite. Because of these many difficulties, the surgeon who cares for trauma must pay particular attention to the factors that cause errors in management and should make every effort to prevent these errors. In this chapter, a number of common errors in the management of injured patients are discussed. This discussion includes missed diaphragmatic injury, failure to recognize extremity compartment syndrome, failure to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome, delayed damage-control laparotomy, missed hollow viscus injuries, failure to perform a tertiary survey, futile or emergency department thoracotomy, and the dogma of mandatory colostomy.
MISSED DIAPHRAGMATIC INJURY
A number of physical findings should increase the surgeon’s suspicion for diaphragmatic injury. These include penetrating thoracoabdominal injury or blunt trauma involving injuries to the abdomen or chest. Unfortunately, physical examination is unreliable in patients with diaphragmatic injury. In fact, 20%–40% of patients with isolated diaphragmatic injury have an initially normal physical examination. A number of noninvasive diagnostic adjuncts are routinely used in the evaluation of trauma patients. These include chest x-ray, focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST), and computed tomography (CT). Unfortunately, all of these diagnostic modalities used either alone or in combination are unreliable for the diagnosis of diaphragmatic injury. Additionally, diagnostic peritoneal lavage is nonspecific and fails to diagnose isolated diaphragmatic injury in a large percentage of cases. The only methods that evaluate the diaphragm with certainty are invasive operative procedures that directly visualize the diaphragm.
ABDOMINAL COMPARTMENT SYNDROME
The diagnosis of ACS is based on clinical parameters and the measurement of IAP. Findings of oliguria (<0.5 ml/kg/hr), hypoxia (oxygen delivery <600 ml/min/m2) with increasing airway pressures (peak >45 cm H2O), SVR greater than 1000, and a distended abdomen, are all suggestive of ACS. Two methods of IAP measurement are clinically useful: intragastric and intravesicular. The latter is the most widely employed. First described by Kron et al., the technique involves clamping the bladder catheter, followed by the injection of 50–100 ml of sterile saline into the bladder. The catheter is then connected to a pressure manometer.