Browsing by Author "Ariaka, Herbert"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An Unusual Occurrence of Penetrating Aortic Arch Injury by a Ball‑point Pen: a case report and review of the literature
    (Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2022-12-12) Ariaka, Herbert; Magala, John Paul; Kebba, Naomi; Kabuye, Ronald; Namirembe, Stella Magara; Nalule, Miriam
    Aortic arch injuries account for about 8% of thoracic aortic injuries. Penetrating zone I neck injuries account for 18% of vascular injuries in the neck and have great potential to traverse to involve thoracic vascular structures as well. The hard and soft signs of vascular injury facilitate triage of patients on an individual basis. We present a case of a ball-point pen traversing through zone I of the neck and causing penetrating aortic arch injury with minimal mediastinal haemorrhage. We present a polytrauma patient who was admitted with traumatic brain injury and a ball-point pen lodged above the sternal notch in zone I of the neck following a road traffic accident. He underwent mediastinal exploration via a median sternotomy. The ball-point pen was found penetrating the anterior wall of the aortic arch and resting in its lumen. The ball-point pen was successfully explanted and primary repair of the penetrating aortic arch injury was done. He had an uneventful recovery without any added secondary neurological complications. Penetrating aortic arch injuries are rare compared to injuries of the ascending aorta and descending aorta. They require a high index of suspicion, rapid investigation and urgent intervention in view of their high associated fatality. The ball-point pen in this case assumed the shape of a plug which acted as a seal at the site of injury preventing catastrophic exsanguination.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of QSOFA and sirs scores for the prediction of adverse outcomes of secondary peritonitis among patients admitted on the adult surgical ward in a tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda: a prospective cohort study
    (BMC Emergency Medicine, 2021) Nkonge, Emmanuel; Kituuka, Olivia; Ocen, William; Ariaka, Herbert; Ogwal, Alfred; Ssekitoleko, Badru
    SIRS and qSOFA are two ancillary scoring tools that have been used globally, inside and outside of ICU to predict adverse outcomes of infections such as secondary peritonitis. A tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda uses SIRS outside the ICU to identify patients with secondary peritonitis, who are at risk of adverse outcomes. However, there are associated delays in decision making given SIRS partial reliance on laboratory parameters which are often not quickly available in a resource limited emergency setting. In response to the practical limitations of SIRS, the sepsis-3 task force recommends qSOFA as a better tool. However, its performance in patients with secondary peritonitis in comparison to that of SIRS has not been evaluated in a resource limited setting of a tertiary teaching hospital in a low and middle income country like Uganda. Objective: To compare the performance of qSOFA and SIRS scores in predicting adverse outcomes of secondary peritonitis among patients on the adult surgical wards in a tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients with clinically confirmed secondary peritonitis, from March 2018 to January 2019 at the Accident and Emergency unit and the adult surgical wards of a tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda. QSOFA and SIRS scores were generated for each patient, with a score of ≥2 recorded as high risk, while a score of < 2 recorded as low risk for the adverse outcome respectively. After surgery, patients were followed up until discharge or death. In-hospital mortality and prolonged hospital stay were the primary and secondary adverse outcomes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy at 95% confidence interval were calculated for each of the scores using STATA v.13. Results: A total of 153 patients were enrolled. Of these, 151(M: F, 2.4:1) completed follow up and were analysed, 2 were excluded. Mortality rate was 11.9%. Fourty (26.5%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay. QSOFA predicted in-hospital mortality with AUROC of 0.52 versus 0.62, for SIRS. Similarly, qSOFA predicted prolonged hospital stay with AUROC of 0.54 versus 0.57, for SIRS. Conclusion: SIRS is superior to qSOFA in predicting both mortality and prolonged hospital stay among patients with secondary peritonitis. However, overall, both scores showed a poor discrimination for both adverse outcomes and therefore not ideal tools.