Splenic artery embolization changes the management of blunt splenic injury: an observational analysis of 680 patients graded by the revised 2018 AAST-OIS

Angioembolization for splenic injuries: does it help? Retrospective evaluation of grade III-V splenic injuries at two level I trauma centers

Background

Splenic angioembolization (SAE) has increased in utilization for blunt splenic injuries. We hypothesized lower SAE usage would not correlate with higher rates of additional intervention or mortality when choosing initial non-operative management (NOM) or surgery.

Study design

Trauma registries from two level I trauma centers from 2010 to 2020 were used to identify patients aged >18 years with grade III-V blunt splenic injuries. Results were compared with the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) for 2018 for level I and II centers. Additional intervention or failure was defined as any subsequent SAE or surgery. Mortality was defined as death during admission.

Results

There were 266 vs 5943 patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria at Stanford/Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) versus the NTDB. Initial intervention differed significantly between cohorts with the use of SAE (6% vs 17%, p=0.000). Failure differed significantly between cohorts (1.5% vs 6.5%, p=0.005). On multivariate analysis, failure in NOM was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, grade V spleen injury, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) 25+. On multivariate analysis, failure in SAE was significantly associated with Shock Index >0.9 and 10+ units blood in 24 hours. On multivariate analysis, a higher risk of mortality was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, no private insurance, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, ISS 25+, 10+ units blood in 24 hours, NOM, more than one hospital complications, anticoagulant use, other Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3 abdominal injuries.

Conclusions

Compared with national data, our cohort had less SAE, lower rates of additional intervention, and had lower risk-adjusted mortality. Shock Index >0.9, grade V splenic injuries, and increased transfusion requirements in the first 24 hours may signal a need for surgical intervention rather than SAE or NOM and may reduce mortality in appropriately selected patients.

Level of evidence

Level II/III.

Pre- and post-implementation protocol for non-operative management of grade III-V splenic injuries: An observational study

Background

Grade (III-V) blunt splenic injuries (BSI) in hemodynamically stable patients represent clinical challenges for successful non-operative management (NOM). In 2014, Our institution proposed a treatment protocol requiring splenic angiography and embolization for stable, intermediate, and high-grade BSI. It also included a follow-up CT scan for grade III BSI. We sought to assess the success rate of NOM in treating intermediate and high-grade BSI, following a standardized treatment protocol at a level 1 trauma center.

Methods

An observational retrospective study was conducted. Data of patients with BSI from June 2011 to September 2019 were reviewed using the Qatar National Trauma Registry. Patients' demographics, CT scan and angiographic findings, grade of splenic injuries, and outcomes were analyzed. The pre- and post-implementation of treatment protocol periods were compared.

Results

During the study period, a total of 552 hemodynamically stable patients with BSI were admitted, of which 240 had BSI with grade III to V. Eighty-one patients (33.8%) were admitted in the pre-protocol implementation period and 159 (66.2%) in the post-protocol implementation period. The NOM rate increased from 50.6% in the pre-protocol group to 65.6% in the post-protocol group (p = 0.02). In addition, failure of the conservative treatment did not significantly differ in the two periods, while the requirement for blood transfusion dropped from 64.2% to 45.9% (p = 0.007). The frequency of CT scan follow-up (55.3% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.001) and splenic arterial embolization (32.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.001) in NOM patients increased significantly in the post-protocol group compared to the pre-protocol group. Overall mortality was similar between the two periods. However, hospital and ICU length of stay and ventilatory days were higher in the post-protocol group.

Conclusions

NOM is an effective and safe treatment option for grade III-V BSI patients. Using standardized treatment guidelines for intermediate-to high-grade splenic injuries could increase the success rate for NOM and limit unnecessary laparotomy. Moreover, angioembolization is a crucial adjunct to NOM that could improve the success rate.

Non-operative management of high-grade splenic injury: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to establish whether embolization is more effective than clinical observation for adult patients with grade III-V splenic injuries. The findings will be used to guide future practice and, if necessary, inform future research design and conduct.

INTRODUCTION

The spleen is one of the most frequently injured intra-abdominal organs, with a reported adult mortality of 7% to 18% following trauma. Non-operative management has become a standard of care for hemodynamically stable patients. In clinical practice, the decision whether to prophylactically embolize or manage high-grade injuries with observation alone remains controversial.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Sources including adult patients with grade III-V splenic injuries secondary to blunt trauma will be included in this review. Eligible studies must include comparisons between 2 cohorts of patients undergoing either prophylactic embolization or clinical observation only. Outcomes will include mortality rate, failure of treatment, intensive care unit admission, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion requirements, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis will be conducted. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL will be searched for eligible studies, as will trial registries and sources of gray literature. Study selection, quality appraisal, and data extraction of outcomes will be performed in duplicate. Methodological quality will be evaluated using JBI critical appraisal tools. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. A random effects model will be used and statistical analysis will be performed. The certainty of the findings will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023420220.

A systematic review assessing incorporation of prophylactic splenic artery embolisation (pSAE) into trauma guidelines for the management of high-grade splenic injury

BACKGROUND

Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has become a vital strategy in the modern landscape of multidisciplinary trauma care, improving splenic salvage rates in patients with high-grade injury. However, due to a lack of prospective data there remains contention amongst stakeholders as to whether SAE should be performed at the time of presentation (prophylactic or pSAE), or whether patients should be observed, and SAE only used only if a patient re-bleeds. This systematic review aimed to assess published practice management guidelines which recommend pSAE, stratified according to their quality.

METHODS

The study was registered and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched by the study authors. Identified guidelines were graded according to the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.

RESULTS

Database and internet searches identified 1006 results. After applying exclusion criteria, 28 guidelines were included. The use of pSAE was recommended in 15 guidelines (54%). This included 6 out of 9 guidelines that were high quality (66.7%), 4 out of 9 guidelines that were moderate quality (44.4%), and 3 out of 10 (30%) guidelines that were low quality, p = 0.275.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed that recommendation of pSAE is more common in guidelines which are of high quality. However, there is vast heterogeneity of recommended practice guidelines, likely based on individual trauma systems rather than the available evidence. This reflects biases with interpretation of data and lack of multidisciplinary system inputs, including from interventional radiologists.

Grading Abdominal Trauma: Changes in and Implications of the Revised 2018 AAST-OIS for the Spleen, Liver, and Kidney

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, trauma is the leading cause of fatal injuries for Americans aged 1-44 years old and the fourth leading overall cause of death. Accurate and early diagnosis, including grading of solid organ injuries after blunt abdominal trauma (BAT), is crucial to guide management and improve outcomes. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scale (OIS) is the most widely accepted BAT scoring system at CT both within the United States and internationally, and its uses include stratification of injury severity, thereby guiding management, and facilitation of clinical research, billing, and coding. Furthermore, this system also plays a role in the credentialing process for trauma centers in the United States. The newly revised 2018 OIS provides criteria for grading solid organ damage into three groups: imaging, operation, and pathology. The final grade is based on the highest of the three criteria. If multiple lower-grade (I or II) injuries are present in a single organ, one grade is advanced to grade III. The most substantial change in the revised 2018 AAST-OIS is incorporation of multidetector CT findings of vascular injury, including pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula. The authors outline the main revised aspects of grading organ injury using the AAST-OIS for the spleen, liver, and kidney after BAT, particularly the role of multidetector CT and alternative imaging in organ injury detection, the importance of vascular injuries in grade change, and the impact of these changes on patient management and in prediction of operative treatment success and in-hospital mortality. ©RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material and the slide presentation from the RSNA Annual Meeting are available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Comparison of outcomes of proximal versus distal and combined splenic artery embolization in the management of blunt splenic injury: a report of 202 cases from a single trauma center

BACKGROUND

To compare the outcomes of blunt splenic injuries (BSI) managed with proximal (P) versus distal (D) versus combined (C) splenic artery embolization (SAE).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with BSI who demonstrated vascular injuries on angiograms and were managed with SAE between 2001 and 2015. The success rate and major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III) were compared between the P, D, and C embolizations.

RESULTS

In total, 202 patients were enrolled (P, n = 64, 31.7%; D, n = 84, 41.6%; C, n = 54, 26.7%). The median injury severity score was 25. The median times from injury to SAE were 8.3, 7.0, and 6.6 h for the P, D, and C embolization, respectively. The overall haemostasis success rates were 92.6%, 93.8%, 88.1%, and 98.1% in the P, D, and C embolizations, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.079). Additionally, the outcomes were not significantly different between the different types of vascular injuries on angiograms or the materials used in the location of embolization. Splenic abscess occurred in six patients (P, n = 0; D, n = 5; C, n = 1), although it occurred more commonly in those who underwent D embolization with no significant difference (p = 0.092).

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate and major complications of SAE were not significantly different regardless of the location of embolization. The different types of vascular injuries on angiograms and agents used in different embolization locations also did not affect the outcomes.

Negative Splenic Angiography in Blunt Trauma: Does Embolization Affect Splenic Salvage?

Angioembolization in blunt splenic trauma is used to maximize splenic preservation. Superiority of prophylactic embolization over expectant management in patients with a negative splenic angiography (SA) is debated. We hypothesized that embolization in negative SA would be associated with splenic salvage. Of 83 patients undergoing SA, 30 (36%) had a negative SA. Embolization was performed in 23 (77%). Grade of injury, contrast extravasation (CE) on computed tomography (CT) or embolization were not associated with splenectomy. In 20 patients with either a high-grade injury or CE on CT, 17 (85%) underwent embolization with a failure rate of 24%. In the remaining 10 without high-risk features, 6 underwent embolization with a 0% splenectomy rate. Despite embolization, the failure rate of nonoperative management (NOM) remains significant in those with high-grade injury or CE on CT. A low threshold for early splenectomy after prophylactic embolization is needed.

Splenic Artery Embolization in Conservative Management of Blunt Splenic Injury Graded by 2018 AAST-OIS: Results from a Hospital in Vietnam

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate the results of conservative management of blunt splenic trauma according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) in 2018 by embolization.

Methods

This observational study included 50 patients (42 men and 8 women) with splenic injury who underwent multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and embolization.

Results

According to the 2018 AAST-OIS, 27 cases had higher grades than they did according to the 1994 AAST-OIS. The grades of two cases of grade II increased to grade IV; those of 15 cases of grade III increased to grade IV; and four cases of grade IV increased to grade V. As a result, all patients underwent successful splenic embolization and were stable at discharge. No patients required re-embolization or conversion to splenectomy. The mean hospital stay was 11.8±7 days (range, 6-44 days), with no difference in length of hospital stay among grades of splenic injury (p >0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with the AAST-OIS 1994, the AAST-OIS 2018 classification is useful in making embolization decisions, regardless of the degree of blunt splenic injury with vascular lacerations visible on MDCT.

Implementation of the robotic abdominal phase during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): results from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the added value of robotic-assistance in the abdominal phase during esophagectomy is scarce. In 2003, our center implemented the robotic thoracic phase for esophagectomy. In November 2018 the robot was also implemented in the abdominal phase. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the abdominal phase during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent full RAMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis for esophageal cancer were included. Patients were extracted from a prospectively maintained institutional database. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed for abdominal operation time and abdominal lymph node yield. Intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes including collected lymph nodes per abdominal lymph node station were reported.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, 70 consecutive patients were included. The majority of the patients had an adenocarcinoma (n = 55, 77%) and underwent neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (n = 65, 95%). The median operative time for the abdominal phase was 180 min (range 110-233). The CUSUM analysis for abdominal operation time showed a plateau at case 22. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions during the abdominal phase. The most common postoperative complications were pneumonia (n = 18, 26%) and anastomotic leakage (n = 14, 20%). Radical resection margins were achieved in 69 (99%) patients. The median total lymph node yield was 42 (range 23-83) and the median abdominal lymph node yield was 16 (range 2-43). The CUSUM analysis for abdominal lymph node yield showed a plateau at case 21. Most abdominal lymph nodes were collected from the left gastric artery (median 4, range 0-20).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a robotic abdominal phase was safely implemented for RAMIE without compromising intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes. The learning curve is estimated to be 22 cases in a high-volume center with experienced upper GI robotic surgeons.