Comparison of modified rapid deployment hemostat dressing with standard haemostat as part of standardized perihepatic packing for major liver trauma in a level 1 trauma center

Abstract

IntroductionUncontrolled hemorrhage is a major cause of mortality in surgery and trauma. Damage control surgery (DCS) is essential in the management of these cases. The use of topical hemostatic agents has increased over the last two decades with the evolution of DCS and trauma-induced coagulopathy. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of standard perihepatic packing with the addition of either a MRDH (modified rapid deployment hemostat) or a non-MRDH hemostatic dressing.MethodsThis was a retrospective, comparative analysis of prospectively collected data held in the registry of a level I trauma center in Bologna, Italy, between 2005 and 2019. 33 patients with grade IV/V liver injuries who underwent a standardized perihepatic packing with hemostatic dressings were enrolled in the study. The study group included 21 patients treated with standard packing plus MRDH. The control group included 12 patients treated with standard packing plus a combination of fibrillar absorbable hemostat and human fibrin sealant.ResultsThe two groups were homogeneous in terms of age and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade although the MRDH one seemed to have more severe injury: hemodynamic instability was present in 95% of MRDH patients vs. 83% in the control group. Also, Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) were 41 vs 35.5 and 47 vs 39.1, respectively. The incidence of re-bleeding requiring repacking at the second-look laparotomy was 4.7% in MRDH patients vs. 16.7% in non-MRDH patients ( p = .5, OR = 4). The overall complication rate was of 23% after the introduction of MRDH vs. 81% in the control group.ConclusionDespite the potential effectiveness of MRDH, this study does not seem to confirm a significant superiority of this hemostat over the standard.