Splenic artery embolization versus splenectomy: Analysis for early in-hospital infectious complications and outcomes

Splenic artery embolization for trauma: a narrative review

The management of traumatic splenic injuries has evolved significantly over the past several decades, with the majority of these injuries now being treated nonoperatively. Patients who exhibit hemodynamic instability upon initial evaluation typically require surgical intervention, while the remainder are managed conservatively. Conservative treatment for traumatic splenic injuries encompasses both medical management and splenic artery angiography, followed by embolization in cases where patients exhibit clinical signs of ongoing splenic hemorrhage. Splenic artery embolization is generally divided into two categories: proximal and distal embolization. The choice of embolization technique is determined by the severity and location of the splenic injury. Patients who retain functioning splenic tissue after trauma do not routinely need immunization. This is in contrast to post-splenectomy patients, who are at increased risk for opportunistic infections.

Clinical Outcomes of Splenic Artery Embolization Versus Splenectomy in the Management of Hemodynamically Stable High-Grade Blunt Splenic Injuries: A National Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to compare the outcomes of splenic artery embolization (SAE) versus splenectomy in adult trauma patients with high-grade blunt splenic injuries.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database (2017-2021) compared SAE versus splenectomy in adults with blunt high-grade splenic injuries (grade ≥ IV). Patients were stratified first by hemodynamic status then splenic injury grade. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU-LOS), and transfusion requirements at four and 24 h from arrival.

RESULTS

Three thousand one hundred nine hemodynamically stable patients were analyzed, with 2975 (95.7%) undergoing splenectomy and 134 (4.3%) with SAE. One thousand eight hundred sixty five patients had grade IV splenic injuries, and 1244 had grade V. Patients managed with SAE had 72% lower odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.28; P = 0.002), significantly shorter ICU-LOS (7 versus 9 d, 95%, P = 0.028), and received a mean of 1606 mL less packed red blood cells at four h compared to those undergoing splenectomy. Patients with grade IV or V injuries both had significantly lower odds of mortality (IV: OR 0.153, P < 0.001; V: OR 0.365, P = 0.041) and were given less packed red blood cells within four h when treated with SAE (2056 mL versus 405 mL, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SAE may be a safer and more effective management approach for hemodynamically stable adult trauma patients with high-grade blunt splenic injuries, as demonstrated by its association with significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality, shorter ICU-LOS, and lower transfusion requirements compared to splenectomy.

Value of interventional radiology and their contributions to modern medical systems

Interventional radiology (IR) is a unique specialty that incorporates a diverse set of skills ranging from imaging, procedures, consultation, and patient management. Understanding how IR generates value to the healthcare system is important to review from various perspectives. IR specialists need to understand how to meet demands from various stakeholders to expand their practice improving patient care. Thus, this review discusses the domains of value contributed to medical systems and outlines the parameters of success. IR benefits five distinct parties: patients, practitioners, payers, employers, and innovators. Value to patients and providers is delivered through a wide set of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Payers and hospital systems financially benefit from the reduced cost in medical management secondary to fast patient recovery, outpatient procedures, fewer complications, and the prestige of offering diverse expertise for complex patients. Lastly, IR is a field of rapid innovation implementing new procedural technology and techniques. Overall, IR must actively advocate for further growth and influence in the medical field as their value continues to expand in multiple domains. Despite being a nascent specialty, IR has become indispensable to modern medical practice.

A case report of successful splenic artery embolization for atraumatic splenic rupture secondary to Epstein Barr virus infection in a haemodynamically unstable patient

Splenic rupture in haemodynamically unstable patients has traditionally been managed with splenectomy. This case report discusses the successful management of atraumatic splenic rupture, a rare but life-threatening complication of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, in a hemodynamically unstable patient. The patient, diagnosed with infectious mononucleosis (IM) secondary to EBV, presented with severe abdominal pain and a syncopal episode. Imaging revealed an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade III splenic injury, which was subsequently upgraded to a grade IV injury on repeat imaging. The patient's condition deteriorated even with initial resuscitation, leading to splenic angioembolization. The procedure was successful and the patient was discharged after 5 days. This case highlights the efficacy of splenic artery embolization (SAE) in haemodynamically unstable patients with atraumatic splenic rupture, particularly in centers with interventional radiology resources, offering an alternative to splenectomy and its associated complications.

The use of splenic embolization in immune thrombocytopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of splenic embolization (SE) in treating refractory immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) remains uncertain. A systematic literature review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness and safety of SE in treating both paediatric and adult patients with ITP. We conducted an extensive search employing predefined criteria. We extracted platelet counts at baseline and at multiple intervals following SE, along with details of the proportion of embolized spleen parenchyma and the proportion of patients exhibiting complete or partial platelet count responses. We identified nine eligible reports for the analysis of effectiveness (228 patients) and 15 reports for the safety analysis (151 patients). Pooled estimates of complete response (platelet count >100 × 109/L) and overall response (platelet count >30 × 109/L) were 50.1% (95% CI: 38-62.3) and 74.4% (95% CI: 64.9-83.9) respectively. Most studies applied an embolization of at least 60% of the spleen parenchyma. Nearly all the patients suffered from mild adverse events (AEs), 1.3% suffered from serious AEs and one patient died (0.7%). In conclusion, SE resulted in an overall response rate in 74.4% of patients with ITP. However, this finding derives from uncontrolled studies of low to moderate quality.

Comparative effectiveness of angioembolization versus open surgery in patients with blunt splenic injury

The effectiveness and safety of transcatheter splenic artery embolization (SAE) compared to those of open surgery in patients with blunt splenic injury (BSI) remain unclear. This retrospective cohort-matched study utilized data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank recorded between 2004 and 2019. Patients with BSI who underwent SAE or open surgery were selected. A propensity score matching analysis was used to balance the baseline covariates and compare outcomes, including all-cause in-hospital mortality and spleen salvage. From 361,706 patients recorded in the data source, this study included 2,192 patients with BSI who underwent SAE or open surgery. A propensity score matching analysis was used to extract 377 matched pairs of patients. The in-hospital mortality rates (SAE, 11.6% vs. open surgery, 11.2%, adjusted relative risk (aRR): 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-1.09, p = 0.10) were similar in both the groups. However, spleen salvage was significantly less achieved in the open surgery group than in the SAE group (SAE, 87.1% vs. open surgery, 32.1%; aRR: 2.84, 95%CI: 2.29-3.51, p < 0.001). Survival rates did not significantly differ between BSI patients undergoing SAE and those undergoing open surgery. Nonetheless, SAE was notably associated with a higher likelihood of successful spleen salvage.

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.

Splenic artery embolisation for splenic injury during colonoscopy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Splenic injury due to colonoscopy is rare, but has high mortality. While historically treated conservatively for low-grade injuries or with splenectomy for high-grade injuries, splenic artery embolisation is increasingly utilised, reflecting modern treatment guidelines for external blunt trauma. This systematic review evaluates outcomes of published cases of splenic injury due to colonoscopy treated with splenic artery embolisation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of published articles concerning splenic injury during colonoscopy treated primarily with splenic artery embolisation, splenectomy, or splenorrhaphy from 1977 to 2022. Datapoints included demographics, past surgical history, indication for colonoscopy, delay to diagnosis, treatment, grade of injury, splenic artery embolisation location, splenic preservation (salvage), and mortality.

RESULTS

The 30 patients treated with splenic artery embolisation were of mean age 65 (SD 9) years and 67% female, with 83% avoiding splenectomy and 6.7% mortality. Splenic artery embolisation was proximal to the splenic hilum in 81%. The 163 patients treated with splenectomy were of mean age 65 (SD 11) years and 66% female, with 5.5% mortality. Three patients treated with splenorrhaphy of median age 60 (range 59-70) years all avoided splenectomy with no mortality. There was no difference in mortality between splenic artery embolisation and splenectomy cohorts (p = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Splenic artery embolisation is an effective treatment option in splenic injury due to colonoscopy. Given the known benefits of splenic salvage compared to splenectomy, including preserved immune function against encapsulated organisms, low cost, and shorter hospital length of stay, embolisation should be incorporated into treatment pathways for splenic injury due to colonoscopy in suitable patients.

Long-Term Effects of Proximal Splenic Artery Embolization on Splenic Volume and Platelet Count

BACKGROUND

The spleen is the most commonly injured visceral organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Post-splenectomy infection risk has led to the shift toward spleen preserving procedures and splenic artery embolization (SAE) is now the treatment of choice for hemodynamically stable patients with splenic injury. This study aims to assess the long-term effect of SAE on splenic volume and platelet count.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using CPT codes, 66 patients who underwent SAE were identified, and 14 of those who had the necessary imaging and laboratory follow-up were included in the study. Indications for SAE were portal hypertension in 8 patients, bleeding in 4 patients, and thrombocytopenia in 1, and one patient had a separate indication. Splenic volume was calculated by automated volumetric software (Aquarius, TeraRecon, Inc.). Paired t-tests were performed to compare splenic volume and platelets before and after SAE.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (7 males, 7 females) with a mean age of 51 ± 11.95 years underwent SAE and were followed by a repeat computed tomography scan at an average of 733.57 days. Nine SAEs were performed using vascular plugs, 3 using micro coils, and 2 out of that were with Gelfoam slurry, and 2 using coils only. All embolizations were technically successful with complete cessation of flow. Mean splenic volumes pre- and post-SAE were 903.5 ± 523.73 cm³ and 746.5 ± 511.95 cm³, respectively, representing a mean decrease of 8.31% compared to baseline [P = 0.346]. Minimum platelet counts (x10³) pre-SAE (within 3 months) and post-SAE (2 weeks to 3 months after the procedure) were 55.79 ± 57.11 and 116 ± 145.40, respectively. The minimum platelet count showed a statistically significant mean increase of 134.92% (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The splenic volume is not altered significantly by SAE in the long term. Similarly, the platelet count is also not significantly altered at 3 months follow-up. This study, although small, suggests that SAE is a safe intervention that can preserve splenic volume and function in the long term.

Simultaneous CSM-TACE with CalliSpheres® and partial splenic embolization using 8spheres® for hepatocellular carcinoma with hypersplenism: Early prospective multicenter clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Primary hepatocellular carcinoma is often complicated with hepatitis and liver cirrhosis. Some patients develop different degrees of splenomegaly, hypersplenism and hypohepatia due to the aggravation of liver cirrhosis, which to some extent interfere with the treatment of tumors and even affect the prognosis of patients. In this study, we prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous CalliSpheres® microspheres transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (CSM-TACE) and partial splenic embolization (PSE) using 8spheres® for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with hypersplenism.

METHODS

Ninety consecutive HCC patients with hypersplenism who underwent CSM-TACE were selected: 32 patients in CSM-TACE+PSE group, and 58 patients in CSM-TACE group. The peripheral blood cell counts (leukocyte, platelet (PLT), liver function and red blood cell (RBC)), CSM-TACE and/or PSE related complications, and the tumor control rate at 1 month after CSM-TACE were compared. The survival time and prognostic factors were also observed.

RESULTS

Before CSM-TACE, there were no significant differences in sex, age, Child-Pugh grade, tumor size, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) between the two groups. After CSM-TACE, the PLT and white blood cell (WBC) counts in CSM-TACE+PSE group were significantly higher than those in the CSM-TACE group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in RBC before and after treatment (P > 0.05). In the CSM-TACE group, there were no significant differences in WBC, PLT, and RBC before and after treatment (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in liver function at 1 month after treatment between the two groups. The cholinesterase (CHE) level in the CSM-TACE+PSE group after CSM-TACE+PSE was obviously higher than that before CSM-TACE+PSE and higher than that in the CSM-TACE group (P<0.05). However, the level of CHE returned to the preoperative level 1 month after CSM-TACE in the CSM-TACE group. The objective response rate (ORR) and median overall survival (OS) in the CSM-TACE+PSE group were higher than those in the CSM-TACE group (P<0.05). The adverse reactions of the two groups were fever, abdominal pain, stomach discomfort, nausea, and vomiting, and no serious complications occurred. The degree of abdominal pain and fever in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous CSM-TACE and PSE using domestic embolization particles for HCC with hypersplenism have good safety and efficacy and has a low incidence of PSE-related adverse events, it is conducive to improving liver function reserve, and can further improve the median OS.

Vaccination after spleen embolization: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

Angioembolization is an important adjunct in the non-operative management of adult trauma patients with splenic injury. Multiple studies have shown that angioembolization may increase the non-operative splenic salvage rate for patients with high-grade splenic injuries. We performed a systematic review and developed evidence-based recommendations regarding the need for post-splenectomy vaccinations after splenic embolization in trauma patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available evidence were performed utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Nine studies were identified and analyzed. A total of 240 embolization patients were compared to 443 control patients who neither underwent splenectomy nor were embolized. There was no statistical difference between the splenic immune function of embolized and control patients. In addition, a total of 3974 splenectomy patients was compared with 686 embolization patients. Embolization patients had fewer infectious complications and a greater degree of preserved splenic immune function.

CONCLUSION

In adult trauma patients who have undergone splenic angioembolization, we conditionally recommend against routine post-splenectomy vaccinations.

STUDY TYPE

systematic review/meta-analysis Level of evidence: level III.

Repeated partial splenic artery embolization for hypersplenism improves platelet count

Splenic embolization is a minimally invasive alternative to splenectomy for the treatment of hypersplenism. This was a retrospective study of 101 patients with hypersplenism caused by cirrhosis who were treated with splenic embolization and for whom 6 months of follow-up data were available. Of these patients, 65 underwent partial splenic artery embolization (PSE), including 23 who underwent repeated PSE (RPSE). The incidence of abdominal pain was significantly higher in the PSE group than in the total splenic artery embolization (TSE) group (P < 0.001), and its duration was also longer in the PSE group (P = 0.003). Biochemical markers of liver function were compared before and after the operation; aminotransferase indices decreased (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alkaline phosphatase), total bilirubin increased slightly, and albumin and prealbumin decreased after the operation (all P < 0.001). Platelet (PLT) counts began to increase at 1 week postoperatively, peaked at 1 month postoperatively, and then decreased gradually. There was no significant intergroup (PSE and TSE) difference at any time point (1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, P > 0.05). There was a significant intergroup (PSE and RPSE) difference in the mean postoperative change in PLT count (P = 0.45). Splenic embolization can improve the inflammatory indicators of liver function. Performing PSE twice or more improves the PLT counts.

Vascular plugs are associated with reduced fluoroscopy times compared to endovascular coils in proximal splenic artery embolization in trauma

Purpose:

Proximal splenic artery embolization plays an important role in the treatment of hemodynamically stable blunt splenic trauma patients with medium- to high-grade injuries. Proximal splenic artery embolization is most often performed utilizing endovascular coils or vascular plugs. The objective of this study was to compare technical and clinical outcomes of proximal splenic artery embolization using either endovascular coils or vascular plugs in patients with traumatic splenic injuries.

Materials and methods:

A single-institution retrospective review of all proximal splenic artery embolizations for trauma over a 5-year period was performed. Patients who underwent embolization using both endovascular coils and vascular plugs were excluded. Baseline characteristics, including patient age, sex, and grade of splenic injury, were recorded. Complication rates, rates of splenic salvage, and total fluoroscopy time were recorded and compared.

Results:

A total of 26 patients were included in the analysis (17 males, 9 females, median age: 50 years). Of these, 15 patients were treated with vascular plugs (57.7%), while 11 patients (42.3%) were treated with endovascular coils. Mean grade of injury was 3.5 and 4.1 in the vascular plug and endovascular coils groups, respectively. There were no differences between the groups regarding these baseline characteristics. Splenic salvage was 100% in both groups. No major complications were identified in either group. Mean fluoroscopy time was significantly lower in the vascular plug group (14.5 versus 34.0 min; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Proximal splenic artery embolization for splenic trauma can be satisfactorily achieved with either vascular plugs or endovascular coils with no differences in splenic salvage or complication rates in this retrospective study. However, embolization utilizing vascular plugs had significantly reduced fluoroscopy times.

Cost-effectiveness of splenic artery embolization versus splenectomy after trauma in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of SAE versus splenectomy from a societal perspective in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient-level data obtained from the XXX study were used to populate a health economic model and supplemented with expert opinion when necessary. Propensity score matching was used to correct for baseline differences in injury severity scores. The health economic model consisted of three health states (complications after intervention, SAE failure, and recovery) and a dead state. Model outcomes were incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental costs of SAE over splenectomy. Dutch health economic guidelines were followed. The model used a lifetime time horizon. Uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving SAE had a higher life expectancy compared to patients receiving splenectomy. Incremental QALYs were 3.1 (mostly explained by difference in life expectancy) and incremental costs were €34,135 (explained by costs related to medical consumption and lost productivity in additional life years), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €11,010 per QALY. SAE was considered cost-effective in over 95% of iterations using a threshold of €20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

SAE results in more QALYs than splenectomy. Intervention costs for SAE are lower than for splenectomy, but medical consumption and productivity costs in later years are higher for SAE due to better survival. SAE was found to be cost-effective compared to splenectomy under appropriate Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Effect of Prophylactic Embolization on Patients With Blunt Trauma at High Risk of Splenectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Splenic arterial embolization (SAE) improves the rate of spleen rescue, yet the advantage of prophylactic SAE (pSAE) compared with surveillance and then embolization only if necessary (SURV) for patients at high risk of spleen rupture remains controversial.

Objective

To determine whether the 1-month spleen salvage rate is better after pSAE or SURV.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this randomized clinical trial conducted between February 6, 2014, and September 1, 2017, at 16 institutions in France, 133 patients with splenic trauma at high risk of rupture were randomized to undergo pSAE or SURV. All analyses were performed on a per-protocol basis, as well as an intention-to-treat analysis for specific events.

Interventions

Prophylactic SAE, preferably using an arterial approach via the femoral artery, or SURV.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was an intact spleen or a spleen with at least 50% vascularized parenchyma detected on an arterial computed tomography scan at 1 month after trauma, assessed by senior radiologists masked to the treatment group. Secondary end points included splenectomy and pseudoaneurysm, secondary SAE after inclusion, complications, length of hospital stay, quality-of-life score, and length of time off work or studies during the 6-month follow-up.

Results

A total of 140 patients were randomized, and 133 (105 men [78.9%]; median age, 30 years [interquartile range, 23-47 years]) were retained in the study. For the primary end point, data from 117 patients (57 who underwent pSAE and 60 who underwent SURV) could be analyzed. The number of patients with at least a 50% viable spleen detected on a computed tomography scan at month 1 was not significantly different between the pSAE and SURV groups (56 of 57 [98.2%] vs 56 of 60 [93.3%]; difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 12.1%; P = .37). By the day 5 visit, there were significantly fewer splenic pseudoaneurysms among patients in the pSAE group than in the SURV group (1 of 65 [1.5%] vs 8 of 65 [12.3%]; difference, -10.8%; 95% CI, -19.3% to -2.1%; P = .03), significantly fewer secondary embolizations among patients in the pSAE group than in the SURV group (1 of 65 [1.5%] vs 19 of 65 [29.2%]; difference, -27.7%; 95% CI, -41.0% to -15.9%; P < .001), and no difference in the overall complication rate between the pSAE and SURV groups (19 of 65 [29.2%] vs 27 of 65 [41.5%]; difference, -12.3%; 95% CI, -28.3% to 4.4%; P = .14). Between the day 5 and month 1 visits, the overall complication rate was not significantly different between the pSAE and SURV groups (11 of 59 [18.6%] vs 12 of 63 [19.0%]; difference, -0.4%; 95% CI, -14.4% to 13.6%; P = .96). The median length of hospitalization was significantly shorter for patients in the pSAE group than for those in the SURV group (9 days [interquartile range, 6-14 days] vs 13 days [interquartile range, 9-17 days]; P = .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with splenic trauma at high risk of rupture, the 1-month spleen salvage rate was not statistically different between patients undergoing pSAE compared with those receiving SURV. In view of the high proportion of patients in the SURV group needing SAE, both strategies appear defendable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02021396.

Post-traumatic Splenic Injury Outcomes for Nonoperative and Operative Management: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Splenectomies are widely performed, but there exists controversy regarding care for splenic injury patients. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature over the last 20 years for operative management (OM) versus nonoperative management (NOM) versus splenic artery embolization (SAE) for traumatic splenic injuries and associated outcomes.

METHODS

A review of literature was performed following the PRISMA guidelines through a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, JAMA Network, and SAGE journals from 2000 to 2020 regarding splenic injury in trauma patients and their management. Articles were then selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria with GRADE criteria used on the included articles to assess quality.

RESULTS

Twenty retrospective cohorts and one prospective cohort assessed patients who received OM versus NOM or SAE. Multiple studies indicated that NOM, in properly selected patients, provided better outcomes than its operative counterpart.

CONCLUSION

This review provides additional evidence to support the NOM of splenic injuries for hemodynamically stable patients with benign abdomens as it accounts for consistently shorter hospital length of stay, fewer complications, and lower mortality than OM. For hemodynamically unstable patients, management continues to be intervention with surgery. More studies are needed to further investigate outcomes of post-splenectomy patients based on grade of injury, hemodynamic status, type of procedure (i.e., SAE), and failure of NOM in order to provide additional evidence and improve outcomes for this patient population.

The cost to perform splenic artery embolisation following blunt trauma: Analysis from a level 1 Australian trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has been shown to be an effective treatment for haemodynamically stable patients with high-grade blunt splenic injury. However, there are no local estimates of how much treatment costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of providing SAE to patients in the setting of blunt abdominal trauma at an Australian level 1 trauma centre.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective review of 10 patients who underwent splenic embolisation from December 2017 to December 2018 for the treatment of isolated blunt splenic injury, including cost of procedure and the entire admission. Costs included angiography costs including equipment, machine, staff, and post-procedural costs including pharmacy, general ward costs, orderlies, ward nursing, allied health, and further imaging.

RESULTS

During the study period, patients remained an inpatient for a mean of 4.8 days and the rate of splenic salvage was 100%. The mean total cost of splenic embolisation at our centre was AUD$10,523 and median cost AUD$9959.6 (range of $4826-$16,836). The use of a plug as embolic material was associated with increased cost than for coils. Overall cost of patients requiring ICU was mean AUD$11,894 and median AUD$11,435.8. Overall cost for those not requiring ICU was mean AUD$7325 and median AUD$8309.8.

CONCLUSION

Splenic embolisation is a low-cost procedure for management of blunt splenic injury. The cost to provide SAE at our centre was much lower than previously modelled data from overseas studies. From a cost perspective, the use of ICU for monitoring after the procedure significantly increased cost and necessity may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Further research is advised to directly compare the cost of SAE and splenectomy in an Australian setting.

Laparoscopic splenectomy after trauma: Who, when and how. A systematic review

Importance:

A deep knowledge of the indication for laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) in trauma case can lead trauma surgeon to offer in a wider number of situations a minimally invasive approach to a common injuries.

Objective:

To present and review the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic approach for spleen trauma and to identify patient whose can benefit from a minimally invasive approach versus patient that need open surgery to assess the whole severity of trauma.

Evidence Review:

A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA statement in order to identify articles reporting LS after trauma. A literature search was performed through MEDLINE (through PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2018. Studies conducted on animals were not considered. All other laparoscopic procedures for spleen trauma were excluded.

Results:

Nineteen articles were included in this study, reporting 212 LS after trauma. The most study includes blunt trauma patient. All LS were performed in haemodynamically stable patient. Post-operative complications were reported in all articles with a median post-operative morbidity rate of 30 patients (14.01%), including 16 (7.5%) post-operative deaths.

Conclusions and Relevance:

This article reports the feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive approach for common trauma injuries which can help non-advanced laparoscopic skill trauma surgeon to develop the best indication to when to adopt this kind of approach.

SPLEnic salvage and complications after splenic artery EmbolizatioN for blunt abdomINal trauma: the SPLEEN-IN study

BACKGROUND

As an adjunct to non-operative management, splenic artery embolization (SAE) has been increasingly utilized throughout the world and is now the standard of care for hemodynamically stable patients. This study aimed to retrospectively assess the rate of splenic salvage and complications after SAE for blunt trauma at a level 1 trauma center using the 2018 update to the AAST criteria, and further sub-stratify the role of angiography in AAST grade III injuries with significant hemoperitoneum. All patients between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2019 who underwent blunt trauma and proceeded to embolization were included. Data was collected concerning initial injury grade, location of embolization, type of embolic material used, complications, and need for subsequent splenectomy. Technical success was defined as successful angiographic occlusion of the target artery at the conclusion of embolization. Clinical success was defined as splenic salvage at discharge. Vascular lesions were characterized including those with active bleeding, pseudoaneurysm, and arterio-venous fistula.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two patients were included in the study. Treatments were performed at a median of 0 days (range 0-28 days) and the median AAST grade was IV (range III-V). Technical success was achieved in all patients. There were 13 complications (5.6%) consisting of re-bleed (9, 3.9%), infarction (3, 1.3%), and access site haematoma (1, 0.43%). Clinical success was achieved in 97% of patients with 7 patients requiring splenectomy after SAE (3.0%) at a median time of 4 days (range 0-17 days). Angiography in patients with grade III injuries identified 18 occult vascular injuries not identified at initial CT (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The SPLEEN-IN study shows that treatment of intermediate-high grade blunt force traumatic splenic injuries using SAE resulted in a low rate of complication and splenic salvage in 97% of patients, providing a safe and effective treatment in stable patients. In addition, angiography of grade III injuries identified occult vascular lesions and may warrant treatment of select patients in this cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Readmission for infection after blunt splenic injury: A national comparison of management techniques

BACKGROUND

As nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injury (BSI) increases, understanding risks, especially infectious complications, becomes more important. There are no national studies on BSI outcomes that track readmissions across hospitals. Prior studies demonstrate that infection is a major cause of readmission after trauma and that a significant proportion is readmitted to different hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare nationwide outcomes of different treatment modalities for BSI including readmissions to different hospitals.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database for 2010 to 2014 was queried for patients 18 years to 64 years old admitted nonelectively with a primary diagnosis of BSI. Organ space infection; a composite infectious incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), urinary tract infection, and pneumonia; and sepsis were identified in three groups: NOM, splenic artery embolization (SAE), and operative management (OM). Rates of infection were quantified during index admission and 30-day and 1-year readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Results were weighted for national estimates.

RESULTS

Of the 37,986 patients admitted for BSI, 54.1% underwent NOM, 12.2% SAE, and 33.7% OM. Compared with OM and NOM, SAE had the highest rates of organ space SSI at 1 year (3.9% vs. 2.2% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). Compared with NOM, at 1 year, SAE had higher rates of infection (17.2% vs. 8.1%, p < 0.001) and sepsis (3.2% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001). Compared with NOM, SAE had an increased risk of infection (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95 confidence interval [95% CI], 1.10-1.39; p < 0.001) and sepsis (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; p < 0.001) at 1 year. At 1 year, SAE had increased risk of organ space SSI (OR, 1.99; 1.60-2.47; p < 0.001) but OM did not.

CONCLUSION

Blunt splenic injury treated with SAE is at increased risk of both immediate and long-term infectious complications. Despite being considered splenic preservation, surgeons should be aware of these risks and incorporate such knowledge into their practice accordingly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological study, level IV.

Splenic artery angioembolization for high-grade splenic injury: Are we wasting money?

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management (NOM) is accepted treatment of splenic injury, but this may fail leading to splenectomy. Splenic artery embolization (SAE) may improve rate of salvage. The purpose is to determine the cost-utility of the addition of SAE for high-grade splenic injuries.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was developed to compared NOM to SAE in patients with blunt splenic injury. Sensitivity analysis was completed to account for uncertainty. Utility outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

For patients with grade III, IV and V injury NOM is the dominant strategy. The probability of NOM being the more cost-effective strategy is 87.5% in patients with grade V splenic injury. SAE is not the favored strategy unless the probability of failure of NOM is greater than 70.0%.

CONCLUSION

For grade III-V injuries, NOM without SAE yields more quality-adjusted life years. NOM without SAE is the most cost-effective strategy for high-grade splenic injuries.

Endovascular Embolization Techniques in a Novel Swine Model of Fatal Uncontrolled Solid Organ Hemorrhage and Coagulopathy

BACKGROUND

Endovascular embolization is increasingly used in treating traumatic hemorrhage and other applications. No endovascular-capable translational large animal models exist and coagulopathy's effect on embolization techniques is unknown. We developed a coagulation-adaptable solid organ hemorrhage model in swine for investigation of embolization techniques.

METHODS

Anesthetized swine (n = 26, 45 ± 3 kg) had laparotomy and splenic externalization. Half underwent 50% isovolemic hemodilution with 6% hetastarch and cooling to 33-35°C (COAG group). All had controlled 20 mL/kg hemorrhage and endovascular access to the proximal splenic artery with a 4F catheter via a right femoral sheath. Splenic transection and 5 min free bleeding were followed by treatment (n = 5/group) with 5 mL gelfoam slurry, three 6-mm coils, or no treatment (n = 3, control). Animals received 15 mL/kg plasma resuscitation and were monitored for 6 hr. Splenic blood loss was continuously measured and angiograms were performed at specified times.

RESULTS

Coagulopathy was successfully established in COAG animals. Pre-treatment blood loss was greater in COAG (11 ± 6 mL/kg) than non-COAG (7 ± 3 mL/kg, P = 0.04) animals. Splenic hemorrhage was universally fatal without treatment. Non-COAG coil survival was 4/5 (326 ± 75 min) and non-COAG Gelfoam 3/5 (311 ± 67 min) versus non-COAG Control 0/3 (82 ± 18 min, P < 0.05 for both). Neither COAG Coil (0/5, 195 ± 117 min) nor COAG Gelfoam (0/5, 125 ± 32 min) treatment improved survival over COAG Control (0/3, 56 ± 19 min). Post-treatment blood loss was 4.6 ± 3.4 mL/kg in non-COAG Coil and 4.6 ± 2.9 mL/kg in non-COAG Gelfoam, both lower than non-COAG Control (18 ± 1.3 mL/kg, P = 0.05). Neither COAG Coil (8.4 ± 5.4 mL/kg) nor COAG Gelfoam (15 ± 11 ml/kg) had significantly less blood loss than COAG Control (20 ± 1.2 mL/kg). Both non-COAG treatment groups had minimal blood loss during observation, while COAG groups had ongoing slow blood loss. In the COAG Gelfoam group, there was an increase in hemorrhage between 30 and 60 min following treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A swine model of coagulation-adaptable fatal splenic hemorrhage suitable for endovascular treatment was developed. Coagulopathy had profound negative effects on coil and gelfoam efficacy in controlling bleeding, with implications for trauma and elective embolization procedures.

Long-Term Follow-Up After Non-operative Management of Blunt Splenic and Liver Injuries: A Questionnaire-Based Survey

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management (NOM) of blunt splenic or liver injuries (solid organ injury, SOI) has become the standard of care in hemodynamically stable patients. However, the incidence of long-term symptoms in these patients is currently not known. The aim of this study was to assess long-term symptoms in patients undergoing successful NOM (sNOM) for SOI.

METHODS

Long-term posttraumatic outcomes including chronic abdominal pain, irregular bowel movements, and recurrent infections were assessed using a specifically designed questionnaire and analyzed by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty out of 138 (58%) patients with SOI undergoing sNOM) responded to the questionnaire. Median (IQR) follow-up time was 48.8 (28) months. Twenty-seven (34%) patients complained of at least one of the following symptoms: 17 (53%) chronic abdominal pain, 13 (41%) irregular bowel movements, and 8 (25%) recurrent infections. One female patient reported secondary infertility. No significant association between the above-mentioned symptoms and the Injury Severity Score, amount of hemoperitoneum, or high-grade SOI was found. Patients with chronic pain were significantly younger than asymptomatic patients (32.1 ± 14.5 vs. 48.3 ± 19.4 years, p = 0.002). Irregular bowel movements were significantly more frequent in patients with severe pelvic fractures (15.4 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.025). A trend toward a higher frequency of recurrent infections was found in patients with splenic injuries (15.9 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.067).

CONCLUSION

A third of patients with blunt SOI undergoing sNOM reported long-term abdominal symptoms. Younger age was associated with chronic abdominal symptoms. More studies are warranted to investigate long-term outcomes immunologic sequelae in patients after sNOM for SOI.

Splenic Embolization After Trauma: An Opportunity to Improve Best Immunization Practices

BACKGROUND

The spleen is the second most commonly injured solid organ during blunt abdominal trauma. Although total splenectomy is frequently performed for injury, splenic rupture can also be managed by splenic embolization. For these patients, current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations indicate that if 50% or more of the splenic mass is lost, patients should be treated as though they are asplenic. We have previously demonstrated that compliance with ACIP guidelines regarding immunization after splenectomy is poor. Compliance with vaccination in the setting of splenic embolization for trauma is unknown and we hypothesized patients would not receive the recommended immunizations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All admissions at our level 1 trauma center requiring splenic embolization secondary to traumatic injury between January 1, 2010, and November 1, 2015, were reviewed. Demographic and injury data, dates and imaging of splenic embolizations, immunization documentation, subsequent vaccination boosters received, and outcomes were collected from the medical record. The proportion of spleen embolized was estimated by review of angiographic imaging using an established method.

RESULTS

Nine thousand nine hundred sixty-five trauma patients were admitted during the period studied. Nineteen patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Median age of the patient population was 35 y, 85% were male, and median injury severity score was 28. Of these, 15 patients underwent a splenic embolization, in which 50% or more of their splenic mass was lost through embolization. Eight patients received at least one immunization before discharge. Six received initial immunizations against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae, while three received only the initial immunization against S pneumoniae. None of the 15 patients received any ACIP-recommended booster. Of the four patients having less than 50% of their spleen embolized, three wrongly received immunization against encapsulated organisms before hospital discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients undergoing splenic embolization at our institution receive postsplenectomy immunizations incorrectly and had no recorded booster vaccines. We speculate that this is common among the U.S. trauma centers. Review of immunization practices in our trauma and nontrauma patient populations is underway in our health system to improve the care of these patients, and our experience may serve as a guide for other centers to reduce complications associated with asplenia.

Spleen and liver injuries: when to operate?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although nonoperative management (NOM) is the safest option in most patients with liver and splenic injuries or splenic injuries, some cases still need operative intervention. The aim of this review is to address the most recent literature and the evidence it provides for indications and timing of operative treatment for liver and spleen injuries.

RECENT FINDINGS

There seems to be a decrease in publication rate on these topics over the last years, parallel to the acceptance of NOM as the 'gold standard', with little added to the existing body of evidence over the last 12-24 months. Most published studies are retrospective descriptions or comparisons with historical controls, some observational studies, but no randomized control trials (RCTs).There is a striking lack of high-level evidence for the optimal treatment of solid organ injuries. The role of angiographic embolization as an adjunct to the treatment of liver and spleen injuries is still a matter of discussion.

SUMMARY

Unstable patients with suspected ongoing bleeding from liver and spleen injuries or spleen injuries with inadequate effect of resuscitation should undergo immediate explorative laparotomy.More RCTs are needed to further determine the role of angiographic embolization and who can be safely be treated nonoperatively and who needs surgical intervention.

Surgical Management of Solid Organ Injuries

Surgery used to be the treatment of choice in patients with solid organ injuries. This has changed over the past 2 decades secondary to advances in noninvasive diagnostic techniques, increased availability of less invasive procedures, and a better understanding of the natural history of solid organ injuries. Now, nonoperative management (NOM) has become the initial management strategy used for most solid organ injuries. Even though NOM has become the standard of care in patients with solid organ injuries in most trauma centers, surgeons should not hesitate to operate on a patient to control life-threatening hemorrhage.