• English
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Log In
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse OpenUCT
  • English
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Log In
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Ball, Chad G"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Outcomes of selective nonoperative management of civilian abdominal gunshot wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (BioMed Central, 2018-11-27) Al Rawahi, Aziza N; Al Hinai, Fatma A; Boyd, Jamie M; Doig, Christopher J; Ball, Chad G; Velmahos, George C; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W; Navsaria, Pradeep H; Roberts, Derek J
    Abstract Background Although mandatory laparotomy has been standard of care for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs) for decades, this approach is associated with non-therapeutic operations, morbidity, and long hospital stays. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize outcomes of selective nonoperative management (SNOM) of civilian abdominal GSWs. Methods We searched electronic databases (March 1966–April 1, 2017) and reference lists of articles included in the systematic review for studies reporting outcomes of SNOM of civilian abdominal GSWs. We meta-analyzed the associated risks of SNOM-related failure (defined as laparotomy during hospital admission), mortality, and morbidity across included studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2 statistics and conducting tests of homogeneity. Results Of 7155 citations identified, we included 41 studies [n = 22,847 patients with abdominal GSWs, of whom 6777 (29.7%) underwent SNOM]. The pooled risk of failure of SNOM in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis was 7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.9–10.1%; I2 = 92.6%, homogeneity p < 0.001] while the pooled mortality associated with use of SNOM in this patient population was 0.4% (95% CI = 0.2–0.6%; I2 = 0%, homogeneity p > 0.99). In patients who failed SNOM, the pooled estimate of the risk of therapeutic laparotomy was 68.0% (95% CI = 58.3–77.7%; I2 = 91.5%; homogeneity p < 0.001). Risks of failure of SNOM were lowest in studies that evaluated patients with right thoracoabdomen (3.4%; 95% CI = 0–7.0%; I2 = 0%; homogeneity p = 0.45), flank (7.0%; 95% CI = 3.9–10.1%), and back (3.1%; 95% CI = 0–6.5%) GSWs and highest in those that evaluated patients with anterior abdomen (13.2%; 95% CI = 6.3–20.1%) GSWs. In patients who underwent mandatory abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT), the pooled risk of failure was 4.1% versus 8.3% in those who underwent selective CT (p = 0.08). The overall sample-size-weighted mean hospital length of stay among patients who underwent SNOM was 6 days versus 10 days if they failed SNOM or developed an in-hospital complication. Conclusions SNOM of abdominal GSWs is safe when conducted in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis. Failure of SNOM may be lower in patients with GSWs to the back, flank, or right thoracoabdomen and be decreased by mandatory use of abdominopelvic CT scans.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Penetrating renal injuries: an observational study of non-operative management and the impact of opening Gerota’s fascia
    (2022-06-20) Clements, Thomas W; Ball, Chad G; Nicol, Andrew J; Edu, Sorin; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W; Navsaria, Pradeep
    Background Non-operative management has become increasingly popular in the treatment of renal trauma. While data are robust in blunt mechanisms, the role of non-operative management in penetrating trauma is less clear. Additionally, there is a paucity of data comparing gunshot and stab wounds. Methods A retrospective review of patients admitted to a high-volume level 1 trauma center (Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town) with penetrating abdominal trauma was performed. Patients with renal injuries were identified and compared based on mechanism [gunshot (GSW) vs. stab] and management strategy (operative vs. non-operative). Primary outcomes of interest were mortality and failure of non-operative management. Secondary outcomes of interest were nephrectomy rates, Clavien-Dindo complication rate, hospital length of stay, and overall morbidity rate. Results A total of 150 patients with renal injuries were identified (82 GSW, 68 stab). Overall, 55.2% of patients required emergent/urgent laparotomy. GSWs were more likely to cause grade V injury and concurrent intra-abdominal injuries (p > 0.05). The success rate of non-operative management was 91.6% (89.9% GSW, 92.8% stab, p = 0.64). The absence of hematuria on point of care testing demonstrated a negative predictive value of 98.4% (95% CI 96.8–99.2%). All but 1 patient who failed non-operative management had associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgical intervention. Opening of Gerota’s fascia resulted in nephrectomy in 55.6% of cases. There were no statistically significant risk factors for failure of non-operative management identified on univariate logistic regression. Conclusions NOM of penetrating renal injuries can be safely and effectively instituted in both gunshot and stab wounds with a very low number of patients progressing to laparotomy. Most patients fail NOM for associated injuries. During laparotomy, the opening of Gerota’s fascia may lead to increased risk of nephrectomy. Ongoing study with larger populations is required to develop effective predictive models of patients who will fail NOM.
UCT Libraries logo

Contact us

Jill Claassen

Manager: Scholarly Communication & Publishing

Email: openuct@uct.ac.za

+27 (0)21 650 1263

  • Open Access @ UCT

    • OpenUCT LibGuide
    • Open Access Policy
    • Open Scholarship at UCT
    • OpenUCT FAQs
  • UCT Publishing Platforms

    • UCT Open Access Journals
    • UCT Open Access Monographs
    • UCT Press Open Access Books
    • Zivahub - Open Data UCT
  • Site Usage

    • Cookie settings
    • Privacy policy
    • End User Agreement
    • Send Feedback

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2026 LYRASIS