Nonoperative management of splenic injuries: significance of age

Splenic abscess due to non-operative management of splenic injury: a case report

BACKGROUND

Splenic abscess is a rare disease, with incidence of 0.2-0.7% in previous studies. It often appears with left upper quadrant abdominal pain, fever, chills. Splenic abscess often happens because of hematogenous spreading of infections, endocarditis, angioembolization and some other rare reasons. Treatment relies on one of these two methods: percutaneous drainage or surgery.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 68-year-old diabetic Asian female (Asian woman) presented with generalized abdominal pain, low blood pressure, tachycardia, fever, lethargy and elevated level of blood sugar. She had history of conservative therapy in intensive care unit due to blunt abdominal trauma and splenic injury. She had a huge splenic abscess in ultrasonography and computed tomography scan so she went under splenectomy. Our patient had a splenic abscess without performing any intervention like angioembolization.

CONCLUSION

Immune compromised patients who are selected for nonoperative management after splenic injury need close follow up and evaluating about abscess formation for at least 2 weeks. Early diagnosis and treatment with two methods including percutaneous drainage or splenectomy should be considered and it depends on patient's risk factors, vital signs, general conditions and presence or absence of sepsis.

Clinical Results of Distal Embolization in Grade V Splenic Injury: Four-Year Experience from a Single Regional Trauma Center

PURPOSE

To evaluate the benefits and risks of splenic artery embolization (SAE) in patients with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade V blunt spleen injury (BSI) MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 88 patients treated with SAE between April 2013 and May 2017 at a regional trauma care center were reviewed retrospectively. The BSI grade according to the AAST spleen injury scale (revised version 2018) was determined by using computed tomography (CT) images. A total of 42 patients (46.6%) had AAST grade V injury and were included in the analysis. Patient demographics, angiographic findings, embolization techniques, and technical and clinical outcomes, including splenic salvage rate and procedure-related complications, were examined.

RESULTS

SAE was performed within 2 hours after admission for 78.5% of the patients. All patients underwent selective distal embolization (n = 42). Primary clinical success rate was 80.9% (n = 34), and secondary clinical success rate was 88.1% (n = 37). The clinical failure group consisted of 5 patients. Four patients underwent splenectomy, and 1 patient died due to acute respiratory distress syndrome after embolization. The splenic salvage rate was 85.7% (n = 36). No patient had sepsis at follow-up (median, 247.0 days; interquartile range, 92.0-688.0). Clinical success rates (P = .356) and spleen salvage rates (P = .197) of patients who were hemodynamically stable (n = 19) showed no significant differences from those who were unstable (n = 23).

CONCLUSIONS

Distal embolization of grade V BSI is a safe and feasible procedure which is effective for successful spleen salvage.

Failure of Nonoperative Management of Splenic Injuries in Trauma Patients on Anticoagulation

Although nonoperative management or embolization with preservation of splenic tissue is preferable, there is a significant risk of continued bleeding ultimately requiring splenectomy. It has been established that elderly patients on anticoagulation (AC) have an increased risk of splenic injury, but there are little data to show whether AC plays a role in outcomes of splenic injury in the setting of trauma. This is a retrospective cohort study, including 168 adults aged 50 to 79 years who presented as a trauma patient to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2018. The primary outcome is the management of the splenic injury. Of the 168 patients, 30 were presently taking AC at the time of their injury, and 138 were not taking any AC. These groups were similar in average Injury Severity Score, average grade of splenic injury, and average systolic blood pressure on arrival. However, the groups differed significantly in age and hemoglobin on arrival. We found that patients taking AC at the time of injury underwent splenectomy 23.3 per cent of the time, whereas patients not taking AC underwent splenectomy 11.6 per cent of the time ( P = 0.045). Patients taking AC failed nonoperative management 20 per cent of the time, whereas patients not taking AC failed 0.7 per cent of the time ( P < 0.05). We found that patients taking AC at the time of their traumatic injury were more likely to undergo splenectomy than patients not taking AC. We also found that patients taking AC were more likely to fail nonoperative management.

Safety of selective nonoperative management for blunt splenic trauma: the impact of concomitant injuries

Background

Nonoperative management for blunt splenic injury is the preferred treatment. To improve the outcome of selective nonoperative therapy, the current challenge is to identify factors that predict failure. Little is known about the impact of concomitant injury on outcome. Our study has two goals. First, to determine whether concomitant injury affects the safety of selective nonoperative treatment. Secondly we aimed to identify factors that can predict failure.

Methods

From our prospective trauma registry we selected all nonoperatively treated adult patients with blunt splenic trauma admitted between 01.01.2000 and 12.21.2013. All concurrent injuries with an AIS ≥ 2 were scored. We grouped and compared patients sustaining solitary splenic injuries and patients with concomitant injuries. To identify specific factors that predict failure we used a multivariable regression analysis.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included. Failure of nonoperative therapy (n = 11) and complications only occurred in patients sustaining concomitant injury. Furthermore, ICU-stay as well as hospitalization time were significantly prolonged in the presence of associated injury (4 versus 13 days,p < 0.05). Mortality was not seen. Multivariable analysis revealed the presence of a femur fracture and higher age as predictors of failure.

Conclusions

Nonoperative management for hemodynamically normal patients with blunt splenic injury is feasible and safe, even in the presence of concurrent (non-hollow organ) injuries or a contrast blush on CT. However, associated injuries are related to prolonged intensive care unit- and hospital stay, complications, and failure of nonoperative management. Specifically, higher age and the presence of a femur fracture are predictors of failure.

The need for red blood cell transfusions in the emergency department as a risk factor for failure of non-operative management of splenic trauma: a multicenter prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The majority of patients with splenic trauma undergo non-operative management (NOM); around 15% of these cases fail NOM and require surgery. The aim of the current study is to assess whether the hemodynamic status of the patient represents a risk factor for failure of NOM (fNOM) and if this may be considered a relevant factor in the decision-making process, especially in Centers where AE (angioembolization), intensive monitoring and 24-h-operating room are not available. Furthermore, the presence of additional risk factors for fNOM was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a multicentre prospective observational study, including patients presenting with blunt splenic trauma older than 17 years, managed between 2014 and 2016 in two Italian trauma centres (ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo and Sant'Anna University Hospital in Ferrara-Italy). The risk factors for fNOM were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 124 patients were included in the study. In univariate analysis, the risk factors for fNOM were AAST grade > 3 (fNOM 37.5% vs 9.1%, p = 0.024), and the need of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in the emergency department (ED) (fNOM 42.9% vs 8.9%, p = 0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that the only significant risk factor for fNOM was the need for RBC transfusion in the ED (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study confirms the contraindication to NOM in case of hemodynamically instability in case of splenic trauma, as indicated by the most recent guidelines; attention should be paid to patients with transient hemodynamic stability, including patients who require transfusion of RBC in the ED. These patients could benefit from AE; in centers where AE, intensive monitoring and an 24-h-operating room are not available, this particular subgroup of patients should probably be treated with operative management.

Is It safe? Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries in geriatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Because of increased failure rates of nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injuries (BSI) in the geriatric population, dogma dictated that this management was unacceptable. Recently, there has been an increased use of this treatment strategy in the geriatric population. However, published data assessing the safety of NOM of BSI in this population is conflicting, and well-powered multicenter data are lacking.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2014 and identified young (age < 65) and geriatric (age ≥ 65) patients with a BSI. Patients who underwent splenectomy within 6 hours of admission were excluded from the analysis. Outcomes were failure of NOM and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 18,917 total patients with a BSI, 2,240 (12%) geriatric patients and 16,677 (88%) young patients. Geriatric patients failed NOM more often than younger patients (6% vs. 4%, p < 0.0001). On logistic regression analysis, Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher was the only independent risk factor associated with failure of NOM in geriatric patients (odds ratio, 2.778; confidence interval, 1.769-4.363; p < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality in geriatric patients who had successful vs. failed NOM (11% vs. 15%; p = 0.22). Independent risk factors for mortality in geriatric patients included admission hypotension, Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less, and cardiac disease. However, failure of NOM was not independently associated with mortality (odds ratio, 1.429; confidence interval, 0.776-2.625; p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

Compared with younger patients, geriatric patients had a higher but comparable rate of failed NOM of BSI, and failure rates are lower than previously reported. Failure of NOM in geriatric patients is not an independent risk factor for mortality. Based on our results, NOM of BSI in geriatric patients is safe.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

A comparison of the management of blunt splenic injury in children and young people-A New South Wales, population-based, retrospective study

The importance and safety of non-operative management (NOM) of Blunt Splenic Injury (BSI) has been established in children and adults over recent decades. However, studies have shown higher operation rates in adults. There is international evidence that when children are managed in adult centres, operation rates are higher while adolescents in paediatric centres, are operated on in line with paediatric guidelines. This difference between children and young adults, and the factors responsible, have not been examined in New South Wales (NSW).

OBJECTIVE

To use NSW hospital and mortality data to compare the characteristics of BSI in patients aged 0-16 to those aged 17-25, and determine factors related to operative management (OM) and splenic salvage in each group.

METHODS

Patients age 0-25 between July 2000 and December 2011, with a diagnosis of BSI, were identified in the NSW Admitted Patient Data Collection, and linked to deaths data from Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages and Bureau of Statistics. Operation rate was compared between the two groups. Univariable analysis was used to determine factors associated with OM. Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise elimination was then performed to determine likelihood of OM according to age group, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

1986 cases were identified, with 422 (21.2%) managed operatively - 101/907 children (11.1%) and321/1079 (29.7%)young adults(p<0.001). Of these, 59 (58%) children underwent splenectomy compared with 233 (73%) young adults (p<0.001). OM increased significantly after the age of 12 (p=0.03), and the percentage almost tripled in the teenage years, coinciding with a higher proportion admitted to adult centres. OM doubled again in young adults(p<0.001), all of whom were managed away from paediatric centres. On multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with operation included age over 16 (OR 2.82, 95%CI 2.10-3.81), splenic injury severity, associated thoracic, liver, pancreatic and hollow viscus injury, and blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

While Paediatric Surgeons have wholeheartedly adopted non-operative management, away from paediatric centres, it is possible children and young people in NSW are undergoing operation unnecessarily. Further evaluation of the surgeon attitudes and institutional factors involved in the management of injured children and young people within the broad NSW trauma system is required.

Splenic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines for adult and pediatric patients

Spleen injuries are among the most frequent trauma-related injuries. At present, they are classified according to the anatomy of the injury. The optimal treatment strategy, however, should keep into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic derangement, and the associated injuries. The management of splenic trauma patients aims to restore the homeostasis and the normal physiopathology especially considering the modern tools for bleeding management. Thus, the management of splenic trauma should be ultimately multidisciplinary and based on the physiology of the patient, the anatomy of the injury, and the associated lesions. Lastly, as the management of adults and children must be different, children should always be treated in dedicated pediatric trauma centers. In fact, the vast majority of pediatric patients with blunt splenic trauma can be managed non-operatively. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of splenic trauma and the management guidelines.