Variation in the use of urgent splenectomy after blunt splenic injury in adults

Surgical management of injuries to the abdomen in patients with multiple and/or severe trauma- a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

Our aim was to update evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the surgical management of abdominal injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries based on current evidence. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to May 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for the surgical management of abdominal injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, and diagnostic test accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength.

RESULTS

Three studies were identified. The topics of these studies were nonoperative management in haemodynamically stable patients with isolated blunt hepatic (n = 1) or splenic injuries (n = 1) and selective angioembolisation (n = 1). None of the recommendations were modified, one new recommendation was developed, and one was deleted based on the updated evidence and expert consensus. All recommendations achieved strong consensus.

CONCLUSION

The following recommendations are made. All but one of the previous guideline recommendations were confirmed. The recommendation to perform diagnostic peritoneal lavage in exceptional cases was completely deleted. An additional recommendation was made and states that the performance of a diagnostic laparoscopy can be considered in haemodynamically stable patients with penetrating trauma when there is therapeutic uncertainty.

Preventive Proximal Splenic Artery Embolization for High-Grade AAST-OIS Adult Spleen Trauma without Vascular Anomaly on the Initial CT Scan: Technical Aspect, Safety, and Efficacy-An Ancillary Study

The spleen is the most commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Its management depends on hemodynamic stability. According to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS ≥ 3), stable patients with high-grade splenic injuries may benefit from preventive proximal splenic artery embolization (PPSAE). This ancillary study, using the SPLASH multicenter randomized prospective cohort, evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PPSAE in patients with high-grade blunt splenic trauma without vascular anomaly on the initial CT scan. All patients included were over 18 years old, had high-grade splenic trauma (≥AAST-OIS 3 + hemoperitoneum) without vascular anomaly on the initial CT scan, received PPSAE, and had a CT scan at one month. Technical aspects, efficacy, and one-month splenic salvage were studied. Fifty-seven patients were reviewed. Technical efficacy was 94% with only four proximal embolization failures due to distal coil migration. Six patients (10.5%) underwent combined embolization (distal + proximal) due to active bleeding or focal arterial anomaly discovered during embolization. The mean procedure time was 56.5 min (SD = 38.1 min). Embolization was performed with an Amplatzer™ vascular plug in 28 patients (49.1%), a Penumbra occlusion device in 18 patients (31.6%), and microcoils in 11 patients (19.3%). There were two hematomas (3.5%) at the puncture site without clinical consequences. There were no rescue splenectomies. Two patients were re-embolized, one on Day 6 for an active leak and one on Day 30 for a secondary aneurysm. Primary clinical efficacy was, therefore, 96%. There were no splenic abscesses or pancreatic necroses. The splenic salvage rate on Day 30 was 94%, while only three patients (5.2%) had less than 50% vascularized splenic parenchyma. PPSAE is a rapid, efficient, and safe procedure that can prevent splenectomy in high-grade spleen trauma (AAST-OIS) ≥ 3 with high splenic salvage rates.

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.

Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous

Background

The spleen is the second most commonly injured organ in cases of abdominal trauma. Management of splenic injury depends on the clinical status of the patient and can include nonoperative management (NOM), splenic artery embolization (SAE), surgery (operative splenic salvage or splenectomy), or a combination of these treatments. In nonoperatively managed cases, SAE is sometimes used to control haemorrhage. However, the indications for SAE have not been clearly defined and, in some cases, the potential complications of the procedure may outweigh its benefits.

Review of the literature

Through review of the literature we address the question of when SAE is indicated in combination with NOM of splenic injury, and whether SAE may delay needed surgical treatment in some cases. This systematic review highlighted the use of imperfect and inconsistent scoring systems in the diagnosis of splenic injury, the lack of consensus regarding indications for SAE, and the potential for severe morbidities associated with this procedure. Based on current literature and evidence we provide a new, non-verified, decision algorithm.

Conclusions

NOM+ SAE involves potential risks and operative management may be preferable to SAE for certain patients. To clarify current literature, we propose a new algorithm for blunt abdominal trauma that should be validated prospectively. New evidence-based protocols should be developed to guide diagnosis and management of patients with splenic trauma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The splenic injury outcomes trial: An American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study

BACKGROUND

Delayed splenic hemorrhage after nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injury (BSI) is a feared complication, particularly in the outpatient setting. Significant resources, including angiography (ANGIO), are used in an effort to prevent delayed splenectomy (DS). No prospective, long-term data exist to determine the actual risk of splenectomy. The purposes of this trial were to ascertain the 180-day risk of splenectomy after 24 hours of NOM of BSI and to determine factors related to splenectomy.

METHODS

Eleven Level I trauma centers participated in this prospective observational study. Adult patients achieving 24 hours of NOM of their BSI were eligible. Patients were followed up for 180 days. Demographic, physiologic, radiographic, injury-related information, and spleen-related interventions were recorded. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to determine factors associated with DS.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients were enrolled. Twelve patients (3.1%) underwent in-hospital splenectomy between 24 hours and 9 days after injury. Of 366 discharged with a spleen, 1 (0.27%) required readmission for DS on postinjury Day 12. No Grade I injuries experienced DS. The splenectomy rate after 24 hours of NOM was 1.5 per 1,000 patient-days. Only extravasation from the spleen at time of admission (ADMIT-BLUSH) was associated with splenectomy (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-12.4). Of patients with ADMIT-BLUSH (n = 49), 17 (34.7%) did not have ANGIO with embolization (EMBO), and 2 of those (11.8%) underwent splenectomy; 32 (65.3%) underwent ANGIO with EMBO, and 2 of those (6.3%, p = 0.6020 compared with no ANGIO with EMBO) required splenectomy.

CONCLUSION

Splenectomy after 24 hours of NOM is rare. After the initial 24 hours, no additional interventions are warranted for patients with Grade I injuries. For Grades II to V, close observation as an inpatient or outpatient is indicated for 10 days to 14 days. ADMIT-BLUSH is a strong predictor of DS and should lead to close observation or earlier surgical intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/epidemiological study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Variation in treatment of blunt splenic injury in Dutch academic trauma centers

BACKGROUND

The incidence of splenectomy after trauma is institutionally dependent and varies from 18% to as much as 40%. This is important because variation in management influences splenic salvage. The aim of this study was to investigate whether differences exist between Dutch level 1 trauma centers with respect to the treatment of these injuries, and if variation in treatment was related to splenic salvage, spleen-related reinterventions, and mortality.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients who were admitted between January 2009 and December 2012 to five academic level 1 trauma centers were identified. Multinomial logistic regression was used to measure the influence of hospital on treatment strategy, controlling for hemodynamic instability on admission, high grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma 3-5) splenic injury, and injury severity score. Binary logistic regression was used to quantify differences among hospitals in splenic salvage rate.

RESULTS

A total of 253 patients were included: 149 (59%) were observed, 57 (23%) were treated with splenic artery embolization and 47 (19%) were operated. The observation rate was comparable in all hospitals. Splenic artery embolization and surgery rates varied from 9%-32% and 8%-28%, respectively. After adjustment, the odds of operative management were significantly higher in one hospital compared with the reference hospital (adjusted odds ratio 4.98 [1.02-24.44]). The odds of splenic salvage were significantly lower in another hospital compared with the reference hospital (adjusted odds ratio 0.20 [0.03-1.32]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although observation rates were comparable among the academic trauma centers, embolization and surgery rates varied. A nearly 5-fold increase in the odds of operative management was observed in one hospital, and another hospital had significantly lower odds of splenic salvage. The development of a national guideline is recommended to minimalize splenectomy after trauma.

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.