The song remains the same although the instruments are changing: complications following selective non-operative management of blunt spleen trauma: a retrospective review of patients at a level I trauma centre from 1996 to 2007

[Management of Injuries to the Parenchymal Abdominal Organs]

The most common organs affected by abdominal trauma are the spleen and the liver, often in combination. Pancreatic injuries are rare. In the case of blunt abdominal trauma, which is much more common, a clinical and laboratory examination as well as sonography should be performed. In the initial assessment, the circulatory situation must be screened. If there is haemodynamic instability and presentation of free fluid, an emergency laparotomy is indicated. If the situation is stable or stabilised and a pathological sonography is present, it is essential to perform triphasic contrast enhanced computed tomography, which is also mandatory in polytraumatised patients. If a renal injury is suspected, a late venous phase should be attached. In addition to the classification of the injury, attention should be paid to possible vascular injury or active bleeding. In this case, angiography with the possibility of intervention should be performed. Endoscopic treatment is possible for injuries of the pancreatic duct. If the imaging does not reveal any intervention target and a circulation is stable, a conservative approach is possible with continuous monitoring using clinical, laboratory and sonographic controls. Most injuries can be successfully treated by non-operative management (NOM).There are various surgical options for treating the injury, such as local and resecting procedures. There is also the option of "damage control surgery" with acute bleeding control and second look. Complex surgical procedures should be performed at centres. Postoperative complications arise out of elective surgery.In the less common case of penetrating abdominal trauma, the actual extent of the injury cannot be estimated from the visible wound. Here again, the circulatory situation determines the next steps. An emergency laparotomy should be carried out in case of instability. If the condition is stable, further diagnostics should be performed using contrast enhanced computed tomography. If penetration through the peritoneum cannot be clearly excluded, diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed.

Grade III Splenic Laceration After a Ground-Level Fall in a Pediatric Patient: The Need for Return-to-Play/Activities Protocols for Individuals With Splenic Injury or Splenomegaly

Splenic injury is a potentially fatal injury if left undetected or untreated. Although most splenic injuries result from a traumatic event, it is important to consider if one's history (past or present) increases their risk for splenic injury (i.e., splenomegaly). We present a case regarding a school-age child who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with abdominal pain following a ground-level fall onto a carpeted stair step. Prior to this injury, the patient had cold-like symptoms for 3 months that were treated solely with supportive care by their pediatrician(s). A transferring hospital's abdominal CT imaging revealed a grade III splenic laceration. The patient was monitored in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) by way of serial abdominal examinations, vitals, and labs. When the patient was cleared for discharge, it was recommended to refrain from strenuous activity for 1-2 months due to the risk of repeat splenic injury. Post-discharge, the patient's Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology returned and was consistent with a past infection which was an inconclusive finding. Although trauma is most commonly the culprit of splenic injuries, it is important to keep differentials broad when considering causes of splenomegaly as this may allow healthcare providers to potentially prevent injury/provide appropriate management post-injury and guide return-to-play recommendations.

[Treatment recommendation and care in traumatic rupture of the spleen]

The spleen is the most frequently affected organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Initial diagnostics include the physical examination, laboratory blood controls and ultrasound. Furthermore, a triphasic dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan is indicated. Apart from the imaging-based classification of the injury with consideration of vascular alterations and active bleeding, the hemodynamic condition of the patient is a crucial factor. For patients who are hemodynamically stable or can be stabilized, a nonoperative management with a minimum of 24 h of continuous monitoring, regular blood controls of the hemoglobin level as well as ultrasound follow-up should be given precedence. In cases of active bleeding or pathological vascular alterations, a radiological intervention in the sense of an embolization should be initiated. A hemodynamically unstable patient must immediately undergo surgical treatment, during which a spleen-preserving approach via splenorrhaphy should principally be favored over splenectomy. This also applies to patients where the intervention has failed. To prevent severe infections after splenectomy it is advised to vaccinate against Pneumococcus, Haemophilus influenzae type B and Meningococcus as well as the annual seasonal influenza vaccination according to the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommendations.

Follow-up strategies for patients with splenic trauma managed non-operatively: the 2022 World Society of Emergency Surgery consensus document

Background

In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery published its guidelines for the management of adult and pediatric patients with splenic trauma. Several issues regarding the follow-up of patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM remained unsolved.

Methods

Using a modified Delphi method, we sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the NOM of splenic trauma and reach a consensus among a group of 48 international experts from five continents (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, America) concerning optimal follow-up strategies in patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM.

Results

Consensus was reached on eleven clinical research questions and 28 recommendations with an agreement rate ≥ 80%. Mobilization after 24 h in low-grade splenic trauma patients (WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) was suggested, while in patients with high-grade splenic injuries (WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), if no other contraindications to early mobilization exist, safe mobilization of the patient when three successive hemoglobins 8 h apart after the first are within 10% of each other was considered safe according to the panel. The panel suggests adult patients to be admitted to hospital for 1 day (for low-grade splenic injuries—WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) to 3 days (for high-grade splenic injuries—WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), with those with high-grade injuries requiring admission to a monitored setting. In the absence of specific complications, the panel suggests DVT and VTE prophylaxis with LMWH to be started within 48–72 h from hospital admission. The panel suggests splenic artery embolization (SAE) as the first-line intervention in patients with hemodynamic stability and arterial blush on CT scan, irrespective of injury grade. Regarding patients with WSES Class II blunt splenic injuries (AAST Grade III) without contrast extravasation, a low threshold for SAE has been suggested in the presence of risk factors for NOM failure. The panel also suggested angiography and eventual SAE in all hemodynamically stable adult patients with WSES Class III injuries (AAST Grades IV–V), even in the absence of CT blush, especially when concomitant surgery that requires change of position is needed. Follow-up imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound/CT scan in 48–72 h post-admission of trauma in splenic injuries WSES Class II (AAST Grade III) or higher treated with NOM was considered the best strategy for timely detection of vascular complications.

Conclusion

This consensus document could help guide future prospective studies aiming at validating the suggested strategies through the implementation of prospective trauma databases and the subsequent production of internationally endorsed guidelines on the issue.

Occurrence of spontaneous fistulas detected by contrast filling during computed tomography-guided percutaneous drainage placement of splenic and perisplenic fluid collections

BACKGROUND

Fistulas are serious complications of splenic and perisplenic fluid accumulations, which are often difficult to detect by routine imaging methods.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the occurrence of spontaneous fistulas detectable during computed tomography-guided percutaneous drainage placement (CTGDP) with contrast filling of splenic or perisplenic fluid collections and to assess characteristics in comparison with perihepatic or peripancreatic fluid accumulations, also being treated with CTGDP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 127 CTGDP-procedures, pre-interventional CTs conducted with intravenous contrast agent were compared to post-interventional CTs including contrast filling of the drain to identify spontaneous fistulas. Patient and case characteristics were evaluated, and therapeutic consequences of fistula identification were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 43 perisplenic, 40 peripancreatic, and 44 perihepatic drains were evaluated; 13 (30.2%) perisplenic, 7 (17.5%) peripancreatic, and 10 (22.7%) perihepatic fistulas were observed. Concerning the frequency of fistulas, no significant difference was found between the patient groups (P = 0.39). All fistulas were solely proven in CT scans including contrast filling of the drain. Seven fistulas (23.3%) required additional interventions. Perihepatic drains were significantly more often associated with recent surgery (P < 0.001). The mean size of peripancreatic drains was significantly greater (11.8 ± 3.9 F; P < 0.001) than in perihepatic or perisplenic fluid collections.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous fistulas detected during CTGDP of splenic or perisplenic fluid collections are common. Post-interventional contrast filling of the drain drastically improves the detection rate of perisplenic, peripancreatic and perihepatic fistulas simultaneously initiating appropriate follow-up interventions.

Very large haematoma following the nonoperative management of a blunt splenic injury in a patient with preexisting liver cirrhosis: a case report

The spleen is the most commonly injured organ after blunt abdominal trauma. Nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard treatment for blunt splenic injuries in haemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis. Complications of NOM include rebleeding, new pseudoaneurysm formation, splenic abscess, and symptomatic splenic infarction. These complications hinder the NOM of patients with blunt splenic injuries. We report a case in which a large haemorrhagic fluid collection that occurred after angio-embolisation was resolved by percutaneous drainage in a patient with liver cirrhosis who experienced a blunt spleen injury.

Non-operative management in blunt splenic trauma: A ten-years-experience at a Level 1 Trauma Center

Trauma; Spleen injuries are among the most frequent trauma-related injuries. The approach for diagnosis and management of Blunt Splenic Injury (BSI) has been considerably shifted towards Non- Operative Management (NOM) in the last few decades. NOM of blunt splenic injuries includes Splenic Angio-Embolization (SAE). Aim of this study was to analyze Pisa Level 1 trauma center (Italy) last 10-years-experience in the management of Blunt Splenic Trauma (BST), and more specifically to evaluate NOM rate and failure. Retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with blunt splenic trauma was done. They were divided into two groups according to the treatment: hemodynamically unstable patients treated operatively (OM group) and patients underwent a nonoperative management (NOM group). The CT scan performed in all NOM group patients. Univariate analysis was performed to identify differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis adjusting for factors with a p value < 0.05 or with clinical relevance was used to identify possible risk factors for NOM failure. 193 consecutive patients with blunt splenic trauma were admitted. Emergency splenectomies were performed in 53 patients (OM group); 140 were managed non-operatively with or without SAE (NOM group). NOM rate in high grade injuries is 57%. Overall NOM failure rate is 9%, and success rate in high grade splenic injuries is 48%; multivariate analysis showed AAST score ≥3 as a risk factor for NOM failure. Non-operative management currently represents the gold standard management for hemodynamically stable patient with blunt splenic trauma even in high grade splenic injuries. AAST ≥3 spleen lesion is a failure risk factor but not a contraindication to for non-operative management.

Delayed splenic rupture following trivial trauma: A case report and review of literature

Introduction and importance

Delayed Splenic Rupture (DSR) is a rare but well-known presentation of Blunt Splenic Injury (BSI), most of which occur due to motor accidents, fall from height or direct blow to the left thorax or abdomen. Here we present a case of DSR five days after a trivial trauma.

Case presentation

A 37-year-old female presented with pain in the left-hypochondrium after an accidental bump against a furniture at home. Initially, it was a grade III splenic injury but upon arrival to our hospital from her hometown it had progressed to grade IV. Since the patient was hemodynamically stable, non-operative management (NOM) was chosen with close monitoring at the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the next morning, the patient deteriorated, showing signs of hemorrhagic shock, and a successful emergency splenectomy was done.

Clinical discussion

Over the last two decades, there has been an increasing inclination of surgeons towards NOM, even for high grade injury. NOM failure has been found to be associated with advancing age, high Injury Severity Score (ISS) or splenic injury. Some factors that improve the success of NOM are admission to ICU/floor, frequent monitoring of hemoglobin/hematocrit, vital signs, abdominal examination, and limiting heavy physical activity.

Conclusion

Clinicians should not limit the possibility of occurrence of DSR to only major traumatic events. It is imperative that a detailed history of major or trivial trauma in the preceding weeks be elicited for any patients presenting with abdominal pain.

•

Delayed Splenic Rupture is a rare but well reported presentation following blunt splenic injury.

•

Delayed Splenic Rupture can even occur following trivial trauma.

•

Clinicians must consider the entire clinical scenario to decide between operative or non-operative management.

•

A detailed history of major or minor trauma must be elicited for any patients with abdominal pain.

Atraumatic Splenic Rupture in a Patient on Apixaban and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Splenic rupture due to any cause is a life-threatening complication and commonly attributed to trauma. Atraumatic splenic rupture is very rarely reported, and the incidence is currently unknown. Anticoagulants and dual anti-platelet medication can increase the chances of a splenic rupture. Surgical removal of the spleen may be warranted to prevent a life-threatening bleeding. Early identification and intervention are required for most patients as only a few qualify for medical management.

Unexpected death due to spontaneous splenic rupture: A rare case in splenic angiosarcoma

Splenic angiosarcoma (SA) is a rare disease that can cause spontaneous splenic rupture leading to unexpected death. The rare incidence and non-specific clinical presentations made the early correct diagnosis of SA impossible in clinical practice. Even with medical intervention, 80% of patients died within 6 months after diagnosis. Here, we report a man who had complained of abdominal distension for 2 weeks and succumbed to the disease nine hours after admission. Diagnosis of hepatic and splenic angiosarcomas was based on post-mortem histopathological examination and immunohistochemistry, and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock caused by spontaneous splenic rupture secondary to SA. This present case was the first forensic autopsy of spontaneous splenic rupture secondary to SA, which can highlight the diagnosis of rare diseases in forensic practice, and forensic pathologists should bear in mind these rare diseases even in routine practice.

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.

Delayed Rupture of a Normal Appearing Spleen After Trauma: Is Our Knowledge Enough? Two Case Reports

BACKGROUND Non-operative management is considered the gold standard for hemodynamically stable patients with splenic injuries. Delayed splenic rupture is a well-known complication of non-operative management in splenic trauma, with a relevant impact on mortality and morbidity. Most of the reported cases of delayed splenic rupture presented splenic injury at admission imaging or no imaging investigations were performed. We report 2 cases of delayed splenic rupture after blunt trauma, in which multidetector computed tomography (CT) scan at admission did not show any splenic injury.   CASE REPORT Two patients were admitted to our emergency surgery unit after abdominal trauma with left rib fractures, but no solid organ injuries were detected at CT scan. Some days after the trauma, both patients suddenly developed hemorrhagic shock due to splenic rupture and required emergency splenectomy. CONCLUSIONS Trauma patients' management and follow-up remains challenging for surgeons, because of sudden clinical changes that can occur. Delayed splenic rupture with inconspicuous admission CT scan is a rare event. In some cases, it seems to be related to a poor CT quality, but this explanation cannot be adopted in all cases. Moreover, there is no standardization for imaging follow-up in the case of a normal CT scan at admission, in order to prevent delayed hemorrhage. In this context, every element that can identify patients with higher risk of delayed splenic rupture is of great importance. We suggest that lower left rib fractures can be associated with delayed splenic rupture, and we propose some explaining hypothesis.

Splenic trauma in the twenty-first century: changing trends in management

Over the past three decades, management of blunt splenic trauma has changed radically. Use of improved diagnostic techniques and proper understanding of disease pathology has led to nonoperative management being chosen as the standard of care in patients who are haemodynamically stable. This review was undertaken to assess available literature regarding changing trends of management of blunt splenic trauma, and to identify the existing lacunae in nonoperative management. The PubMed database was searched for studies published between January 1987 and August 2017, using the keywords 'blunt splenic trauma' and 'nonoperative management'. One hundred and fifty-three articles were reviewed, of which 82 free full texts and free abstracts were used in the current review. There is clear evidence in published literature of the greater success of nonoperative over operative management in patients who are haemodynamically stable and the increasing utility of adjunctive therapies like angiography with embolisation. However, the review revealed a lack of universal guidelines for patient selection criteria and diagnostic and grading procedures needed for nonoperative management. Indications for splenic artery embolisation, the current role of splenectomy and spleen-preserving surgeries, together with the place of minimal access surgery in blunt splenic trauma remain grey areas. Moreover, parameters affecting the outcomes of nonoperative management and its failure and management need to be defined. This shows a need for future studies focused on these shortcomings with the ultimate aim being the formulation and implementation of universally accepted guidelines for safe and efficient management of blunt splenic trauma.

Non-operative management of blunt hepatic and splenic injuries-practical aspects and value of radiological scoring systems

Background

Non-operative management (NOM) of blunt hepatic and splenic injuries has become popular in haemodynamically stable adult patients, despite uncertainty about efficacy, patient selection, and details of management. Up-to-date strategies and practical recommendations are presented.

Methods

A selective literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (1989–2016).

Results

No randomized clinical trial was found. Non-randomized controlled trials and large retrospective and prospective series dominate. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses are available. NOM of selected patients with blunt liver and spleen injuries is associated with low morbidity and mortality. Only data of limited evidence are available on intensity and duration of patient monitoring, repeat imaging, antithrombotic prophylaxis and return to normal activity. There is high-level evidence on early mobilisation and post-splenectomy vaccination.

Conclusion

NOM of blunt liver or spleen injuries is a worldwide trend, but the literature does not provide high-grade evidence for this strategy.

The incidence of delayed splenic bleeding in pediatric blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

One of the concerns associated with nonoperative management of splenic injury in children has been delayed splenic bleed (DSB) after a period of hemostasis. This study evaluates the incidence of DSB from a multicenter 3-year prospective study of blunt splenic injuries (BSI).

METHODS

A 3-year prospective study was done to evaluate nonoperative management of pediatric (≤18years) BSI presenting to one of 10 pediatric trauma centers. Patients were tracked at 14 and 60days. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient and injury characteristics.

RESULTS

During the study period, 508 children presented with BSI. Median age was 11.6 [IQR: 7.0, 14.8]; median splenic injury grade was 3 [IQR: 2, 4]. Nonoperative management was successful in 466 (92%) with 18 (3.5%) patients undergoing splenectomy at the index admission, all within 3h of injury. No patient developed a delayed splenic bleed. At least one follow-up visit was available for 372 (73%) patients.

CONCLUSION

A prior single institution study suggested that the incidence of DSB was 0.33%. Based on our results, we believe that the rate may be less than 0.2%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, Prognosis.

National Readmission Patterns of Isolated Splenic Injuries Based on Initial Management Strategy

Importance

Options for managing splenic injuries have evolved with a focus on nonoperative management. Long-term outcomes, such as readmissions and delayed splenectomy rate, are not well understood.

Objective

To describe the natural history of isolated splenic injuries in the United States and determine whether patterns of readmission were influenced by management strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Readmission Database is an all-payer, all-ages, longitudinal administrative database that provides data on more than 35 million weighted US discharges yearly. The database was used to identify patients with isolated splenic injuries and the procedures that they received. Adult patients with isolated splenic injuries admitted from January 1 through June 30, 2013, and from January 1 through June 30, 2014, were included. Those who died during the index hospitalization or who had an additional nonsplenic injury with an Abbreviated Injury Score of 2 or greater were excluded. Univariate and mixed-effects logistic regression analysis controlling for center effect were used. Weighted numbers are reported.

Exposures

Initial management strategy at the time of index hospitalization, including nonprocedural management, angioembolization, and splenectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause 6-month readmission rate. Secondary outcome was delayed splenectomy rate.

Results

A weighted sample of 3792 patients (2146 men [56.6%] and 1646 women [43.4%]; mean [SE] age, 48.5 [0.7] years) with 5155 admission events was included. During the index hospitalization, 825 (21.8%) underwent splenectomy, 293 (7.7%) underwent angioembolization, and 2673 (70.5%) had no procedure. The overall readmission rate was 21.1% (799 patients). Readmission rates did not differ based on initial management strategy (195 patients undergoing splenectomy [23.6%], 70 undergoing angioembolism [23.9%], and 534 undergoing no procedure [20%]; P = .33). Splenectomy was performed in 36 of 799 readmitted patients (4.5%) who did not have a splenectomy at their index hospitalization, leading to an overall delayed splenectomy rate of 1.2% (36 of 2967 patients). In mixed-effects logistic regression analysis controlling for patient, injury, clinical, and hospital characteristics, the choice of splenectomy (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31) vs angioembolization (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.72-1.97) as initial management strategy was not associated with readmission.

Conclusions and Relevance

This national evaluation of the natural history of isolated splenic injuries from index admission through 6 months found that approximately 1 in 5 patients are readmitted within 6 months of discharge after an isolated splenic injury. However, the chance of readmission for splenectomy after initial nonoperative management was 1.2%. This finding suggests that the current management strategies used for isolated splenic injuries in the United States are well matched to patient need.

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.

Comparing Readmissions and Infectious Complications of Blunt Splenic Injuries Using a Statewide Database

BACKGROUND

Although non-operative management of blunt splenic injury (BSI) is increasingly common, the long-term infectious complications after adjunct splenic artery embolization (SAE) are not well described.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-64 y with BSI were identified in the California State Inpatient Database (2007-2011) and categorized as receiving either non-operative management (NOM) without SAE, NOM with SAE, or operative management (OM). The cumulative incidence of infections (surgical site infections [SSI], pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and sepsis) requiring readmission at different times up to one y after injury were calculated. Patient and treatment factors associated with infectious readmissions were determined using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 4,360 patients with BSI, 61.6% had NOM without SAE, 5.8% had NOM with SAE, and 32.6% had OM. The cumulative incidences of infectious complications after each of the management modes were 1.27%, 1.59%, and 1.76%, respectively, during admission (p = 0.446); 2.16%, 5.18%, and 4.85%, respectively, at 30 d after injury (p < 0.001); and 4.69%, 9.16%, and 8.85%, respectively, at one y after injury (p < 0.001). Risk factors for infection-associated readmissions within one y after injury were Charlson score ≥2 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.61-6.02), length of stay >seven d (AOR 2.47; 95% CI 1.58-3.85), NOM with SAE (AOR 2.00; 95% CI 1.19-3.34), and OM (AOR 1.47; 95% CI 1.05-2.07).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term risk of infectious complications in patients with BSI who have NOM with SAE is similar to that in patients who are treated with OM, indicating the need for pro-active strategies to reduce long-term infectious complications after SAE.

Postdischarge complications following nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard of care in majority of blunt splenic injuries. However, little is known about the postdischarge complications.

METHODS

Patients admitted for blunt splenic injury were identified in the California State Inpatient Database (2007 to 2011). We examined patterns and risk factors for postdischarge complications among these patients.

RESULTS

In total, 2,704 (61.45%) patients had NOM without splenic artery embolization (SAE) and 257 (5.84%) had NOM with adjunct SAE. Thirty-day readmission rate was higher in those who had adjunct SAE (12.84% vs 7.36%, P = .002). Subsequent operations during readmission were seen in 18.10% of readmitted patients and 38.10% of all patients were readmitted at nonindex hospitals. Major diagnoses on readmission were spleen injury (36.2%) and respiratory complications (9.05%). Adjunct SAE was an independent risk factor for readmission (adjusted odds ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one fifth of readmitted patients initially managed nonoperatively required an operative intervention. Improving predischarge assessments and postdischarge follow-up may reduce readmissions among these patients.

Splenic injury: diagnosis and management

Better understanding of the dual functionality of the spleen has led to a conservative approach to splenic trauma. With accurate assessment and vigilant clinical examination up to two thirds of splenic injuries can be managed expectantly; when surgery is unavoidable, splenic preserving techniques may be used to maintain function.

Blunt splenic trauma: Assessment, management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

The approach for diagnosis and management of blunt splenic injury (BSI) has been considerably shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). We aimed to review the current practice for the evaluation, diagnosis and management of BSI.

METHODS

A traditional narrative literature review was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE and Google scholar search engines. We used the keywords "Traumatic Splenic injury", "Blunt splenic trauma", "management" between December 1954 and November 2014.

RESULTS

Most of the current guidelines support the NOM or minimally approaches in hemodynamically stable patients. Improvement in the diagnostic modalities guide the surgeons to decide the timely management pathway Though, there is an increasing shift from operative management (OM) to NOM of BSI; NOM of high grade injury is associated with a greater rate of failure, prolonged hospital stay, risk of delayed hemorrhage and transfusion-associated infections. Some cases with high grade BSI could be successfully treated conservatively, if clinically feasible, while some patients with lower grade injury might end-up with delayed splenic rupture. Therefore, the selection of treatment modalities for BSI should be governed by patient clinical presentation, surgeon's experience in addition to radiographic findings.

CONCLUSION

About one-fourth of the blunt abdominal trauma accounted for BSI. A high index of clinical suspicion along with radiological diagnosis helps to identify and characterize splenic injuries with high accuracy and is useful for timely decision-making to choose between OM or NOM. Careful selection of NOM is associated with high success rate with a lower rate of morbidity and mortality.

Comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for severe splenic trauma in the pediatric population

BACKGROUND

Splenic angioembolization (SAE) is increasingly used in the management of splenic injuries in adults, although its value in pediatric trauma is unclear. We sought to assess outcomes related to splenectomy vs SAE.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for patients 0 to 15 years of age from 2007 to 2011. Subgroup analysis of splenectomy vs SAE was performed for high-grade injuries using propensity analysis and inverse probability weighting.

RESULTS

Of 11,694 children presenting with splenic trauma, over 90% were treated nonoperatively. Adjusted analysis of high-grade injuries included 265 children who underwent splenectomy and 199 who underwent SAE. The Injury Severity Score, number of transfusions, and complications rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Overall adjusted mortality for children with high-grade injuries was 13.4% following splenectomy and 10.0% following SAE (P = .31) CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing SAE for high-grade splenic trauma have comparable morbidity and mortality with splenectomy.

Possible infectious causes of spontaneous splenic rupture: a case report

Introduction

Spontaneous atraumatic splenic rupture is a rare but dramatic occurrence that is most commonly attributed to infection or neoplasia. Deciphering the etiology can be challenging with many cases remaining unclear despite full investigation.

Case presentation

We report the case of a previously healthy and immunocompetent 52-year-old Caucasian woman with a remote history of clinically diagnosed infectious mononucleosis who experienced sudden atraumatic splenic rupture after an untreated stray cat bite.

Conclusions

The differential diagnosis for atraumatic splenic rupture, specifically its infectious causes, is reviewed. Key clinical and laboratory findings that differentiate Bartonella henselae infection and Epstein–Barr virus reinfection are reviewed.

Management and outcome of patients with blunt splenic injury and preexisting liver cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The response of liver cirrhosis (LC) patients to abdominal trauma, including blunt splenic injury (BSI) is unfavorable. To better understand the response to BSI in LC patients, the present study reviewed a much larger group of such patients, derived from the National Trauma Data Bank.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for 2002 to 2010, and all adult BSI patients without severe brain trauma were identified. LC and non-LC patients were compared using nonoperative management (NOM) failure and mortality as primary outcomes. Predictors of these outcomes in LC patients were identified.

RESULTS

Of the 77,753 identified BSI patients, 289 (0.37%) had LC. Overall, 90% of the patients underwent initial NOM (86% in LC and 90% in non-LC patients, p = 0.091) with a global 90% success rate. Compared with non-LC patients, LC patients had a lower NOM success rate (83% vs. 90%, p = 0.004) despite increased use of splenic artery angioembolization (13% vs. 8%, p = 0.001). LC patients also had more complications per patient, an increased hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, and a higher mortality (22% vs. 6%, p < 0.0001), which was independent of the treatment paradigm. In the LC group, mortality in those who underwent immediate surgery was 35% versus 46% in failed NOM (p = 0.418) and 14% (p = 0.019) in successful NOM patients. LC patients who did not require surgery were more likely to survive than those who had surgery alone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.30). Preexisting coagulopathy (AOR, 3.28) and Grade 4 to 5 BSI (AOR, 11.6) predicted NOM failure in LC patients, whereas male sex (AOR, 4.34), hypotension (AOR, 3.15), preexisting coagulopathy (AOR, 3.06), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of less than 13 (AOR, 6.33) predicted mortality.

CONCLUSION

LC patients have a higher rate of complications, mortality, and NOM failure compared with non-LC patients. Because LC patients with failed NOM have a mortality rate similar to those undergoing immediate surgery, judgment must be exerted in selecting initial management options.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Damage control - trauma care in the first hour and beyond: a clinical review of relevant developments in the field of trauma care

INTRODUCTION

Trauma provision in the UK is a topic of interest. Regional trauma networks and centres are evolving and research is blossoming, but what bearing does all this have on the care that is delivered to the individual patient? This article aims to provide an overview of key research concepts in the field of trauma care, to guide the clinician in decision making in the management of major trauma.

METHODS

The Ovid MEDLINE(®), EMBASE™ and PubMed databases were used to search for relevant articles on haemorrhage control, damage control resuscitation and its exceptions, massive transfusion protocols, prevention and correction of coagulopathy, acidosis and hypothermia, and damage-control surgery.

FINDINGS

A wealth of research is available and a broad range has been reviewed to summarise significant developments in trauma care. Research has been categorised into disciplines and it is hoped that by considering each, a tailored management plan for the individual trauma patient will evolve, potentially improving patient outcome.

Trauma center variation in splenic artery embolization and spleen salvage: a multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate if variation in management of blunt splenic injury (BSI) among Level I trauma centers is associated with different outcomes related to the use of splenic artery embolization (SAE).

METHODS

All adult patients admitted for BSI from 2008 to 2010 at 4 Level I trauma centers were reviewed. Use of SAE was determined, and outcomes of spleen salvage and nonoperative management (NOM) failure were evaluated. A priori, a 10% SAE rate was used to group centers into high- or low-use groups.

RESULTS

There were 1,275 BSI patients. There were intercenter differences in age, injury severity, and grade of spleen injury (Spleen Injury Scale [SIS]). Mortality was similar by center; however, BSI treatment varied significantly by center. Overall, SAE use was highest at center A compared with B, C, and D (19%, 11%, 1%, and 4%, respectively; p < 0.01). High SAE use centers had significantly higher spleen salvage rates and fewer NOM failures. Differences in the use of SAE (25% vs. 2%, p < 0.01) and salvage rate (67% vs. 56%, p = 0.03) were most dramatic between high- and low-use SAE centers for Grade 3 and 4 injured spleens. In patients who received initial NOM, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that SAE was an independent predictor of spleen salvage (odds ratio, 5; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-13.5; p < 0.01) as were lower age, lower SIS, and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Patients treated at high SAE use centers were more likely to leave the hospital with their spleen in situ (odds ratio, 3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-6.3; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Significant practice variation exists in the use of SAE in treating BSI at Level I trauma centers. Centers with higher rates of SAE use have higher spleen salvage and less NOM failure. SAE was shown to be an independent predictor of spleen salvage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

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.