Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Gen Surg Casestrauma

Gen Surg Cases · trauma

Grade V liver injury with destructive transverse colon injury — pack, staple, transfuse, return and close

Fellowship clinical-management station on damage control: stage-1 abbreviation with deliberate omissions, PROPPR ratios and TXA clock, 36-to-72-hour pack timing, destructive-colon diversion rules, traction-closure choice, SLEEP-TIME re-look discipline and honest survival counselling.

clinical-management3 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
Prompt
A 45-year-old man after high-speed blunt trauma: systolic 80 mm Hg, heart rate 138, FAST positive with more than a litre of haemoperitoneum, lactate 7.2 mmol/L, temperature 34.5°C, INR 1.4. At laparotomy the right liver is shattered and oozing despite suture, and the transverse colon is destroyed with gross contamination. The candidate must run the stage-1 operation, direct products and TXA, set pack-removal and bowel plans, choose temporary closure, time the re-look, attempt fascial closure, and counsel the family on survival and hernia.

Tasks

  1. Declare damage control versus definitive repair with reasons — quoting the admission predictors this patient meets.[13]
  2. Direct the resuscitation: products ratio, TXA decision and timing, and what you monitor through transfusion.[24][26][27]
  3. Perform stage 1 aloud: liver plan, bowel plan, and three things you deliberately do not do.[42][48]
  4. Set the pack-removal window and justify it against the rebleeding data.[40][41]
  5. Choose temporary closure and defend it with closure-rate numbers.[53][51]
  6. Time the re-look and the closure attempt using lactate readiness and the SLEEP-TIME odds — and counsel on survival, hernia and follow-up.[21][50][54]

Model management

Abbreviate: he meets the panel, not the repair threshold. Systolic 80, heart rate 138, positive FAST with major haemoperitoneum, lactate 7.2, temperature 34.5, INR 1.4 — hypotension, tachycardia, cold, acidotic trajectory and coagulopathy together trigger abbreviation under the early-mortality predictor set (INR above 1.2, base deficit above 3, temperature below 35, lactate above 6, haemoglobin below 7), drawn from 319 damage-control patients with 16.3 percent early death.[13] Definitive repair now trades the triad for the grave; pack, staple, leave discontinuous, resuscitate, return.[5]

Resuscitate by ratio and clock. Run balanced products toward empiric 1:1:1 — quoting PROPPR honestly: no mortality difference, but exsanguination 9.2 versus 14.6 percent and haemostasis 86 versus 78 percent — per EAST's high-ratio recommendation.[24][25] Give TXA immediately as 1 g then 1 g over 8 hours: within-1-hour treatment cut bleeding death (RR 0.68) while treatment after 3 hours seemed to increase it (RR 1.44), and the refined window sits inside 90 minutes to 2 hours.[26][27] Watch ionised calcium against the 1.1 threshold and trend lactate — readiness for return is normalisation behaviour, with 10 percent dead inside 24-hour normalisation against 67 percent when it never normalises.[9][21]

Stage 1: pack, staple, divert — omit the rest. Pack the shattered liver for coagulopathic bleeding (definitive in 18 of 22 such injuries; rebleeds came from arterial or venous injuries needing embolisation or reoperation).[42] Staple the destroyed colon without anastomosis: delayed anastomosis leaked 25 percent with excess death when leak occurred, while diversion matched on mortality — so divert or delay, never primarily join destructive injury under triad conditions.[48] Deliberately omit: major hepatic resection, atriocaval shunt (both redundant as emergency procedures), and any prolonged exposure beyond bleeding and contamination control.[47]

Packs out at 36 to 72 hours, first look after 48. Packing duration does not drive sepsis or liver complications, but 24-hour removal rebled more than 48-hour removal, and under-36-hour removal rebled 21 versus 4 percent — so return after 48 hours with embolisation available, where early re-laparotomy proved feasible with less pneumonia and ventilation.[40][41][46]

Close temporarily with vacuum plus traction. Traction-plus-vacuum beat vacuum alone by 35 points for definitive closure with fewer deaths, fistulae, hernias and abscesses; mesh-mediated traction closed 73 versus 54.9 percent against bag and cut failed-closure odds ten-fold in the Finnish cohort.[53][51][49] Skin-only closure belongs to the least injured — this patient is not that patient.[52]

Return within 24 hours, close at the earliest honest moment, counsel with numbers. First takeback inside 24 hours toward 92.9 percent closure; each extra laparotomy costs 91.5 percent of the odds — so make the second operation the definitive one wherever physiology allows.[50] Counsel: early death around one in six in comparable cohorts with his admission values on the wrong side; closure success high with traction but incisional hernia near 40 percent even after success and fistula near 6 percent — so hernia surveillance, nutrition rebuilding and stoma decisions are part of consent, not afterthoughts.[13][54]

References20ShowHide
  1. [5]Parreira JG, Soldá S, Rasslan S [Damage control: a tactical alternative for the management of exanguinating trauma patients]. Arq Gastroenterol, 2002.PMID 12778312
  2. [9]Dupuy C, Martinez T, Duranteau O, et al. Comparison of the lethal triad and the lethal diamond in severe trauma patients: a multicenter cohort. World J Emerg Surg, 2025.PMID 39773274
  3. [13]Frischknecht A, Lustenberger T, Bukur M, et al. Damage control in severely injured trauma patients - A ten-year experience. J Emerg Trauma Shock, 2011.PMID 22090736
  4. [21]Husain FA, Martin MJ, Mullenix PS, et al. Serum lactate and base deficit as predictors of mortality and morbidity. Am J Surg, 2003.PMID 12727572
  5. [24]Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, et al. Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2015.PMID 25647203
  6. [25]Cannon JW, Khan MA, Raja AS, et al. Damage control resuscitation in patients with severe traumatic hemorrhage: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2017.PMID 28225743
  7. [26]Shakur H, Roberts I, Bautista R, et al. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet, 2010.PMID 20554319
  8. [27]Roberts I, Shakur H, Afolabi A, et al. The importance of early treatment with tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2011.PMID 21439633
  9. [40]Nicol AJ, Hommes M, Primrose R, et al. Packing for control of hemorrhage in major liver trauma. World J Surg, 2007.PMID 17334868
  10. [41]Caruso DM, Battistella FD, Owings JT, et al. Perihepatic packing of major liver injuries: complications and mortality. Arch Surg, 1999.PMID 10487590
  11. [42]Krige JE, Bornman PC, Terblanche J Therapeutic perihepatic packing in complex liver trauma. Br J Surg, 1992.PMID 1737272
  12. [46]Kang BH, Jung K, Choi D, et al. Early re-laparotomy for patients with high-grade liver injury after damage-control surgery and perihepatic packing. Surg Today, 2021.PMID 33170365
  13. [47]Badger SA, Barclay R, Campbell P, et al. Management of liver trauma. World J Surg, 2009.PMID 19760312
  14. [48]Oosthuizen G, Buitendag J, Variawa S, et al. Penetrating colonic trauma and damage control surgery: Anastomosis or stoma? ANZ J Surg, 2021.PMID 34056835
  15. [49]Rasilainen S, Mentula P, Salminen P, et al. Superior primary fascial closure rate and lower mortality after open abdomen using negative pressure wound therapy with continuous fascial traction. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2020.PMID 32701909
  16. [50]Kwon E, Krause C, Luo-Owen X, et al. Time is domain: factors affecting primary fascial closure after trauma and non-trauma damage control laparotomy (data from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter registry). Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2022.PMID 34845499
  17. [51]Pillay P, Smith MTD, Bruce JL, et al. The Efficacy of VAMMFT Compared to 'Bogota Bag' in Achieving Sheath Closure Following Temporary Abdominal Closure at Index Laparotomy for Trauma. World J Surg, 2023.PMID 36995399
  18. [52]Hu P, Uhlich R, Gleason F, et al. Impact of initial temporary abdominal closure in damage control surgery: a retrospective analysis. World J Emerg Surg, 2018.PMID 30237824
  19. [53]Cristaudo A, Jennings S, Gunnarsson R, et al. Complications and Mortality Associated with Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am Surg, 2017.PMID 28228207
  20. [54]Petersson P, Petersson U Dynamic Fascial Closure With Vacuum-Assisted Wound Closure and Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction (VAWCM) Treatment of the Open Abdomen-An Updated Systematic Review. Front Surg, 2020.PMID 33251242
PreviousField P2 Sort arrival who deteriorates at the door — re-triage, secondary workup, and hospital flow under loadtraumaNextModerate isolated contusion selected for early surgery — STITCH numbers, TXA, drains and VTE timingtrauma