Hybrid Trauma and Endovascular Surgery
Applied
Type
ModificationConfidence
95%
Created
Mar 26, 2026
Evidence
2 sources
Rationale
The integration of the UK-REBOA trial (Jansen 2026) is a critical update for any vascular trauma section. As a high-quality RCT showing potential harm (increased mortality), it balances the previously optimistic view of REBOA in hybrid settings. The meta-analysis (Castellini 2021) provides broader context on the inconsistency of survival benefits. Abbreviations (IR) were expanded on first use as required.
Evidence
Content Changes
removedadded
<!-- type: treatment --> Hybrid trauma and endovascular surgery integrates **open damage control surgery** with **immediate angiography/endovascular control**, minimizing time lost to transfers and enabling physiology-driven sequencing (control hemorrhage first, then definitive repair). [@trauma2016-endovascular] [@rutherford2018-rutherford] **Why hybrid matters in endovascular trauma management (EVTM)** - Enables **simultaneous** laparotomy/thoracotomy with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) management, embolization, and covered stent deployment. - Reduces “handoff delays” for unstable patients who cannot tolerate transport to IR.interventional radiology (IR). - Supports iterative damage control: packing/temporary closure → angioembolization → reassessment → staged definitive repair. [@wses2018] While REBOA is a core component of the EVTM toolkit, recent high-quality evidence has introduced important caveats. The UK-REBOA randomized clinical trial (RCT) found that the addition of REBOA to standard care in patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage actually increased mortality (54% vs 42%), suggesting that its use may be harmful in certain emergency department settings or patient populations [@jansen2026-emergency]. Furthermore, meta-analyses indicate that survival benefits associated with REBOA remain inconsistent, highlighting the need for rigorous patient selection and specialized team training within the hybrid environment [@castellini2021]. <!-- type: comparison --> **Table 16.5. Location of Care for Unstable Hemorrhage (Practical Framework)** | **Setting** | **Best for** | **Limitations** | | --- | --- | --- | | **Hybrid OR** | Unstable noncompressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) needing possible laparotomy + endovascular control | Resource-intensive; requires trained team | | **IR suite** | Stable or transient responders needing embolization | Transport risk; limited access to open accesssurgery | | **Standard OR** | Rapid laparotomy/packing when no endovascular capability | Delayed pelvic/branch arterial control | **Pelvic hemorrhage integration** Hybrid capability is particularly valuable for pelvic fracture hemorrhage where pathways commonly combine binder/preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), selective REBOA (Zone III), and angioembolization depending on physiology and resource timing. [@coccolini2017-wses] [@bulger2019] [@castellini2021] See also: [[Pelvic Trauma Hemorrhage]] and [[Vascular Trauma|Ch. 15]].