Patient Care Committee of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT). Surgical treatment of injuries and diseases of the spleen

Splenectomy versus Partial Splenic Embolization for Massive Splenomegaly Secondary to Hepatitis B-Related Liver Cirrhosis: A Case-Control Study

Background. Both splenectomy (SP) and partial splenic embolization (PSE) are used to treat massive splenomegaly (MSM) secondary to hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis (HB-LC). This retrospective case-control study was conducted to compare the effects of SP and PSE on these patients. Methods. From July 2004 to January 2012, patients with MSM secondary to HB-LC who underwent SP or PSE were 1 : 1 : 1 matched with similar nonsurgery patients, respectively. Intraoperative situation, hematological indices, liver function, HBV DNA level, HBeAg seroconversion rate, morbidity, and mortality at 6 months postoperatively were compared. Results. Operative time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, severe pain, postoperative stay, and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) rate in the PSE group were significantly superior to the SP group, although SP and PSE were similar in liver function improvement, HBV suppression, morbidity, and mortality at 6 months postoperatively, and SP even improved WBC and PLT counts higher than PSE. Conclusion. Both SP and PSE are effective in improving liver function, increasing WBC and PLT counts, and suppressing replication of HBV for MSM secondary to HB-LC. Although postoperative improvement in WBC and PLT counts by SP can be higher than PSE, PSE is simple and minimally invasive and has a lower incidence of PVT.

Diagnosis and management of splenic injury following colonoscopy: algorithm and case series

BACKGROUND

Splenic injury following colonoscopy is a rare yet life-threatening complication. These injuries are often associated with delayed diagnosis and may require invasive intervention. We sought to study the emergent presentation associated with splenic injury post-colonoscopy and to suggest a new treatment algorithm.

METHODS

Six cases of splenic injury following colonoscopy were collected from three medical centers. Data regarding patient medical history, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging findings and clinical management were recorded. A systematic PubMed/MEDLINE search was performed. Non-English-language publications and publications dating earlier than 2010 were excluded. An emergency department trauma-based management algorithm was designed according to the identified publications and review of the available trauma literature.

RESULTS

The mean age was 65.3 years and the male-to-female ratio was 1:5. Five of the cases presented within 24 h of the colonoscopy complaining of severe abdominal pain. Hemodynamic instability was noted in four patients who presented with tachycardia (105-130), hypotension and/or a rapid drop in hemoglobin levels. All of the patients underwent initial resuscitation and a computerized abdominal tomography scan. Four of them required emergent splenectomy. No mortality or major morbidity was reported following the hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Although very rare, splenic injury during colonoscopy is an acute, severe and possible fatal complication. Patients may present with a rapid clinical deterioration and hemodynamic instability. Physicians should be familiar with the practical management of this surgical emergency and the treatment options available.

Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review

Introduction

The goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay.

Methods

For this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST.

Results

We identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison.

Conclusions

NOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups.

Controversies in the management of splenic trauma

BACKGROUND

The technologic innovations of the last three decades, coupled with a deeper understanding of the immunologic role of the spleen, have significantly shifted the management of splenic injuries towards non-operative approaches. However, there continuous to be a wide range of practice patterns related to the non-operative management of splenic injuries, from which the authors infer a gap between the best available evidence and its translation into practice. We sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the non-operative management of splenic trauma with the aim of further elucidating why these controversies continue to exist.

METHODS

We explored areas of ongoing controversy in the management of splenic injury though a series of iterative surveys. We invited 70 experts in trauma care from ten countries around the world to participate. Areas of controversy explored included: indications and frequency for in-hospital and follow-up imaging, definitions of failure of non-operative management, indications for angioembolisation and non-operative management in special populations (i.e. elderly, concomitant traumatic brain injury, penetrating trauma).

RESULTS

A 49% response rate was obtained. Even though a wide range of practice patterns were identified, no controversies were identified in areas that do not involve the adoption of new technologies. In areas where practice pattern variation was observed, the strong influence of the local environment was constantly identified as an impediment to changes in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified that barriers present within local practice environments are the major driving forces behind controversies in the non-operative management of splenic injuries.

Is Splenectomy after Trauma an Endangered Species?

Nonoperative management of splenic trauma is now the most common treatment modality for splenic injuries and splenectomy has almost disappeared in some trauma centers. Splenectomy for cancer staging is infrequently performed suggesting that the indications for splenectomy continue to evolve. We evaluated a state database to assess a communitywide experience with splenic surgery. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes were used to determine the indication for splenic surgery. Indications for splenic surgery were listed as trauma (injury codes), medical (hematological diseases, neoplasms, or procedures in which the spleen might be removed contiguously like distal pancreatectomy), or incidental (noncontiguous procedures). Splenectomies for medical indications (n = 607, 43%) were more common than splenectomies for trauma (n = 518, 37%) or incidental splenectomies (n = 276, 20%). Splenectomy for medical reasons was associated with hematologic disease in 56 per cent, neoplastic disease in 34 per cent, and other diagnoses in 10 per cent of cases. Incidental splenectomies were most commonly associated with operations on the esophagus/stomach (32%) and colon (30%). Mortality rate and length of stay were greatest for incidental (14.4 ± 0.9 days, 10.9% mortality) compared with trauma (11.0 ± 0.5 days, 7.7% mortality) or medical (9.7 ± 0.4 days, 4.8% mortality) splenectomies (all P < 0.05 versus incidental). Our results suggest that in the era of nonoperative management of splenic injuries, medical indications now represent the most common reason for splenectomy. As laparoscopic techniques for elective splenectomy become more common, the changing indication for splenectomy has important ramifications for surgical education and training.