@article{Ivatury_Feliciano_Herrera_2020, title={Damage control surgery: a constant evolution}, volume={51}, url={https://colombiamedica.univalle.edu.co/index.php/comedica/article/view/4422}, DOI={10.25100/cm.v51i4.4422}, abstractNote={<p>The story of trauma resuscitation is similar to that of many other advances in medicine: described, forgotten, reinvented, ridiculed, and finally accepted. Even after acceptance, the concepts go through periods of neglect and indifference before they are tried and enhanced, till the next advance.</p> <p>            Damage control, a strategy for management of critically injured or ill patients, is a prime example of this phenomenon. It reminds us of the famous words of Oliver Goldsmith in 1761: “<em>for he who fights and runs away, will live to fight another day, but he who is in battle slain, will never rise and fight again</em>”.  Damage control was based on the recognition of the lethal triad of hypothermia, acidosis, and a coagulopathy resulting from massive blood loss, large-volume resuscitation and ischemia-reperfusion. It was an approach that J. Hogarth Pringle from Glasgow, Scotland, suggested in 1908 with his principles of compression and hepatic packing for control of venous hemorrhage from the injured liver: temporary, expeditious and effective. Packing, however, was rarely utilized during World War II and the Vietnam War because of the presumed risk of rebleeding with removal of the packs. The ever-difficult challenge of “non-surgical bleeding” from a coagulopathy due to massive hepatic injuries did, eventually, lead to a resurrection of the concept of perihepatic packing in the 1980s in civilian centers and became one of the initial steps in damage control for patients with severe and/or multiple intra-abdominal injuries.</p>}, number={4}, journal={Colombia Medica}, author={Ivatury, Rao and Feliciano, David V and Herrera, Juan Pablo}, year={2020}, month={Oct.}, pages={e1014422} }