Use of Damage Control Surgery and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in Penetrating Torso Trauma: A Systematic Review
Rattachement africain : gb, om, in, Soudan, pk. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Penetrating torso trauma, often complicated by non-compressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH), is a leading cause of preventable death. Damage control surgery (DCS) is standard care, with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) emerging as a minimally invasive adjunct for temporary hemorrhage control. This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review included six studies with a total of 2,705 patients, comparing combined DCS and REBOA with DCS alone or alternative strategies. Several studies indicated improved survival and faster hemorrhage control, while others reported higher control rates compared to resuscitative thoracotomy. Conversely, some data suggested increased mortality and complications in penetrating abdominal vascular injuries. Pooled findings suggested a potential survival benefit, but heterogeneity and confounding limited certainty. Reported risks included ischemia-reperfusion injury, limb ischemia, and increased transfusion requirements. REBOA may improve outcomes in selected patients, but its benefit appears context-dependent, warranting prospective trials to refine indications and timing.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Use of Damage Control Surgery and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in Penetrating Torso Trauma: A Systematic Review
- Date Crossref
- 11/09/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.