Value of repeat CT for nonoperative management of patients with blunt liver and spleen injury: a systematic review.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2021;
47:1753-1761. [PMID:
33484276 DOI:
10.1007/s00068-020-01584-x]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2020] [Accepted: 12/27/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness of routine repeat computed tomography (CT) for nonoperative management (NOM) of adults with blunt liver and/or spleen injury.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental and observational studies of repeat CT in adult patients with blunt abdominal injury. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from their inception to October 2020 using Cochrane guidelines. Primary outcomes were change in clinical management (e.g., emergency surgery, embolization, blood transfusion, clinical surveillance), mortality, and complications. Secondary outcomes were hospital readmission and length of stay.
RESULTS
Search results yielded 1611 studies of which 28 studies including 2646 patients met our inclusion criteria. The majority reported on liver (n = 9) or spleen injury (n = 16) or both (n = 3). No RCTs were identified. Meta-analyses were not possible because no study performed direct comparisons of study outcomes across intervention groups. Only seven of the twenty-eight studies reported whether repeat CT was routine or prompted by clinical indication. In these 7 studies, among the 254 repeat CT performed, 188 (74%) were routine and 8 (4%) of these led to a change in clinical management. Of the 66 (26%) repeated CT prompted by clinical indication, 31 (47%) led to a change in management. We found no data allowing comparison of any other outcomes across intervention groups.
CONCLUSION
Routine repeat CT without clinical indication is not useful in the management of patients with liver and/or spleen injury. However, effect estimates were imprecise and included studies were of low methodological quality. Given the risks of unnecessary radiation and costs associated with repeat CT, future research should aim to estimate the frequency of such practices and assess practice variation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Level II.
Collapse