Joseph J. DuBose
Research Subjects
Joseph J. DuBose has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ali Azizzadeh
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif
2 shared publications - Charles C. Miller
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Tex
2 shared publications Gerald R. Fortuna
University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Tex
2 shared publications- Hazim J. Safi
University of Texas, Austin
2 shared publications A Azizzadeh
1 shared publicationA L Estrera
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 June 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Vascular Surgery
- Vol. 61 (6) , 74S
Utility of Tubularized Extracellular Matrix As an Alternative Conduit for Arteriovenous Fistula Aneurysm Repair
- 1 June 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Vascular Surgery
- Vol. 61 (6) , 74S
Utility of Tubularized Extracellular Matrix As an Alternative Conduit for Arteriovenous Fistula Aneurysm Repair
- 1 June 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Vascular Surgery
- Vol. 61 (6) , 165S-166S
PC176. Predictors of Aortic-Related Mortality in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury
- 1 June 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Vascular Surgery
- Vol. 61 (6) , 165S-166S
PC176. Predictors of Aortic-Related Mortality in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury
- 14 April 2015
- Vol. 56 (5) , 751-62
Contemporary management of blunt aortic trauma.
Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) remains a common cause of death following blunt mechanisms of trauma. Among patients who survive to reach hospital care, significant advances in diagnosis and treatment afford previously unattainable survival. The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines provide current best-evidence suggestions for treatment of BTAI. However, several key areas of controversy regarding optimal BTAI care remain. These include the refinement of selection criteria, timing for treatment and the need for long-term follow-up data. In addition, the advent of the Aortic Trauma Foundation (ATF) represents an important development in collaborative research in this field.
- 14 April 2015
- Vol. 56 (5) , 751-62
Contemporary management of blunt aortic trauma.
Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) remains a common cause of death following blunt mechanisms of trauma. Among patients who survive to reach hospital care, significant advances in diagnosis and treatment afford previously unattainable survival. The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines provide current best-evidence suggestions for treatment of BTAI. However, several key areas of controversy regarding optimal BTAI care remain. These include the refinement of selection criteria, timing for treatment and the need for long-term follow-up data. In addition, the advent of the Aortic Trauma Foundation (ATF) represents an important development in collaborative research in this field.
- 1 February 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Annals of Vascular Surgery
- Vol. 29 (2) , 366.e1-366.e4
Utilization of a Tubularized CorMatrix Extracellular Matrix for Repair of an Arteriovenous Fistula Aneurysm
- 1 February 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Annals of Vascular Surgery
- Vol. 29 (2) , 366.e1-366.e4
Utilization of a Tubularized CorMatrix Extracellular Matrix for Repair of an Arteriovenous Fistula Aneurysm
- 4 September 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
- Vol. 41 (5) , 539-543
Loop versus end colostomy reversal: has anything changed?
Though primary repair of colon injuries is preferred, certain injury patterns require colostomy creation. Colostomy reversal is associated with significant morbidity and healthcare cost. Complication rates may be influenced by technique of diversion (loop vs. end colostomy), though this remains ill-defined. We hypothesized that reversal of loop colostomies is associated with fewer complications than end colostomies. This is a retrospective, multi-institutional study (four, level-1 trauma centers) of patients undergoing colostomy takedown for trauma during the time period 1/2006–12/2012. Data were collected from index trauma admission and subsequent admission for reversal and included demographics and complications of reversal. Student’s t test was used to compare continuous variables against loop versus end colostomy. Discrete variables were compared against both groups using Chi-squared tests. Over the 6-year study period, 218 patients underwent colostomy takedown after trauma with a mean age of 30; 190 (87 %) were male, 162 (74 %) had penetrating injury as their indication for colostomy, and 98 (45 %) experienced at least one complication. Patients in the end colostomy group (n = 160) were more likely to require midline laparotomy (145 vs. 18, p < 0.001), had greater intra-operative blood loss (260.7 vs. 99.4 mL, p < 0.001), had greater hospital length of stay (8.4 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001), and had more overall complications (81 vs. 17, p = 0.005) than patients managed with loop colostomy (n = 58). Local takedown of a loop colostomy is safe and leads to shorter hospital stays, less intra-operative blood loss, and fewer complications when compared to end colostomy.
- 4 September 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
- Vol. 41 (5) , 539-543
Loop versus end colostomy reversal: has anything changed?
Though primary repair of colon injuries is preferred, certain injury patterns require colostomy creation. Colostomy reversal is associated with significant morbidity and healthcare cost. Complication rates may be influenced by technique of diversion (loop vs. end colostomy), though this remains ill-defined. We hypothesized that reversal of loop colostomies is associated with fewer complications than end colostomies. This is a retrospective, multi-institutional study (four, level-1 trauma centers) of patients undergoing colostomy takedown for trauma during the time period 1/2006–12/2012. Data were collected from index trauma admission and subsequent admission for reversal and included demographics and complications of reversal. Student’s t test was used to compare continuous variables against loop versus end colostomy. Discrete variables were compared against both groups using Chi-squared tests. Over the 6-year study period, 218 patients underwent colostomy takedown after trauma with a mean age of 30; 190 (87 %) were male, 162 (74 %) had penetrating injury as their indication for colostomy, and 98 (45 %) experienced at least one complication. Patients in the end colostomy group (n = 160) were more likely to require midline laparotomy (145 vs. 18, p < 0.001), had greater intra-operative blood loss (260.7 vs. 99.4 mL, p < 0.001), had greater hospital length of stay (8.4 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001), and had more overall complications (81 vs. 17, p = 0.005) than patients managed with loop colostomy (n = 58). Local takedown of a loop colostomy is safe and leads to shorter hospital stays, less intra-operative blood loss, and fewer complications when compared to end colostomy.