Discussion
Previous research has focused on the effect of BMI on outcomes in trauma patients with some studies finding no significant effect,3–5 but at least one study finding worse outcomes with patients with obesity requiring laparotomy after trauma,6 another study finding worse outcomes in patients with obesity sustaining gunshot wounds,7 and three finding a protective effect of obesity in penetrating trauma.8–10 In addition to using BMI, we sought to use CT-based fat quantification to more accurately assess body adipose tissue. Additionally, we sought to separate the effects of subcutaneous fat and visceral fat in patients with stab wounds and gunshot wounds.
Various mechanisms have been proposed for the effect of obesity on penetrating trauma. It has been suggested that subcutaneous fat could act as a cushion and a barrier—increasing the distance needed to travel before damaging internal organs and also dissipating the force,3 however, we were not able to demonstrate a protective effect of subcutaneous fat in gunshot or stab injuries. This could be in part because our registry data only included admitted patients. We are therefore unable to make conclusions about people who sustained penetrating injuries that were not severe enough to require hospitalization. It is possible that high levels of subcutaneous fat reduce the chances of being hospitalized after a stab wound. However, a different study design would be needed to answer this question as our data only included admitted patients.
For gunshot wounds, a bullet is able to pierce the subcutaneous fat with less resistance. Furthermore, obesity is known to lead to poorer outcomes in open surgery,19 as well as being associated with a number of comorbidities. In our data, higher amounts of subcutaneous and visceral fat as well as BMI were associated with poorer outcomes for gunshot wounds.
At least one previous study that analyzed the effect of obesity in penetrating trauma demonstrated no overall effect on morbidity,20 however this study did not separate cases by mechanism of injury or quantify body fat. In our analysis, increased body fat had different effects in patients with gunshot wounds and stab wounds. Although stab wounds and gunshot wounds are often grouped together under the broad heading of penetrating trauma, our findings show that gunshot wounds are more severe and that body habitus has different implications, depending on trauma mechanism. The relationship between body habitus and trauma is complex and not simply related to potential effects of adipose distribution. However, in a resource-limited situation such as a mass casualty event, having additional data to help stratify acuity may prove helpful.
A limitation of our study was the exclusion of patients who underwent exploratory laparotomies prior to receiving a CT scan. Postsurgical changes including the presence of open wounds, packing material, and postsurgical edema make accurate fat quantification challenging. BMI data are unaffected by surgery, so previous studies based on BMI were able to include these cases. In a retrospective review of 10 987 trauma patients receiving laparotomies, BMI was associated with increased mortality, ICU, and hospitalization length of stay.5 That review included both blunt and penetrating trauma, however, subgroup analysis for penetrating trauma was not performed. Our study is therefore unable to make conclusions about injuries severe enough to require immediate laparotomy.
In this study, we analyzed the effects of BMI, subcutaneous fat, and visceral fat in a linear fashion. Some prior studies have analyzed BMI in a stratified fashion, for instance, distinguishing between normal weight patients, overweight patients, and patients with obesity.7 Stratification has the advantage of being able to detect non-linear effects, for instance, a moderate amount of fat may be protective, but too much could be detrimental. Some preliminary attempts at creating cut-off values for adiposity based on fat quantification have been made, however, they have not yet been fully validated or widely used.21 Additionally, due to our relatively small sample size, creating multiple subgroups would reduce statistical power.
For our fat quantification method, we used the area of subcutaneous fat at the umbilicus based on CT, however, subcutaneous fat can be asymmetrically distributed around the abdomen. We considered a more targeted measurement, assessing adiposity at the site of injury, however, it is sometimes challenging to localize the exact site of injury, especially when there are multiple injuries. Additionally, measuring depth of subcutaneous fat creates subjectivity in measurement depending on the exact location chosen and the angle of measurement. Thus, our research did not provide this level of granularity, however, this could be a topic for future research. Area of subcutaneous fat has been previously validated as a reliable and reproducible measurement in prior work.22 23