Predicting the Outcome of Non-operative Management of Splenic Trauma in South Africa

Mortality and its predictors in abdominal injury across sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Abdominal injuries exert a significant impact on global morbidity and mortality. The aggregation of mortality data and its determinants across different regions holds immense importance for designing informed healthcare strategies. Hence, this study assessed the pooled mortality rate and its predictors across sub-Saharan Africa.

METHOD

This meta-analysis employed a comprehensive search across multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Africa Index Medicus, Science Direct, and Hinari, complemented by a search of Google Scholar. Subsequently, data were extracted into an Excel format. The compiled dataset was then exported to STATA 17 statistical software for analysis. Utilizing the Dersimonian-Laird method, a random-effect model was employed to estimate the pooled mortality rate and its associated predictors. Heterogeneity was evaluated via the I2 test, while publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot along with Egger's, and Begg's tests.

RESULT

This meta-analysis, which includes 33 full-text studies, revealed a pooled mortality rate of 9.67% (95% CI; 7.81, 11.52) in patients with abdominal injuries across sub-Saharan Africa with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87.21%). This review also identified significant predictors of mortality. As a result, the presence of shock upon presentation demonstrated 6.19 times (95% CI; 3.70-10.38) higher odds of mortality, followed by ICU admission (AOR: 5.20, 95% CI; 2.38-11.38), blunt abdominal injury (AOR: 8.18, 95% CI; 4.97-13.45), post-operative complications (AOR: 8.17, 95% CI; 4.97-13.44), and the performance of damage control surgery (AOR: 4.62, 95% CI; 1.85-11.52).

CONCLUSION

Abdominal injury mortality is notably high in sub-Saharan Africa. Shock at presentation, ICU admission, blunt abdominal injury, postoperative complications, and use of damage control surgery predict mortality. Tailored strategies to address these predictors could significantly reduce deaths in the region.

Outcomes of Nonoperative Management of Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Injury: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The treatment of penetrating abdominal injuries has changed in recent years with more focus on "nonoperative management" (NOM) to avoid unnecessary laparotomies while identifying injuries early. Although the NOM approach is widely used for stab wounds, its effectiveness in managing abdominal gunshot wounds is controversial. NOM of penetrating abdominal injuries is becoming more dependent on hemodynamic stability and improved noninvasive radiological interventions. The role of NOM is significantly underreported and underestimated in developing countries, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states such as Yemen. The present study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of NOM in penetrating abdominal trauma injury patients and identify factors associated with NOM failure in a low-resource setting.

METHODS

A retrospective study from January 2021 to December 2022 including patients diagnosed with penetrating abdominal trauma at the General Military Hospital, Sana'a, Yemen, was conducted. Hemodynamically stable patients without peritonitis or clear indications for immediate laparotomy were candidates for NOM and were included in the study. Patients with blunt abdominal injuries, penetrating wounds outside the abdomen, particularly head injury, eviscerated structures, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage, or those pronounced dead on arrival were excluded. The primary outcome was the success and failure rate of NOM necessitating laparotomy. The secondary outcome was the factors associated with NOM failure.

RESULTS

During the study, 256 patients with penetrating abdominal injury were admitted, with 222 (86.7%) undergoing immediate laparotomy and 34 (13.3%) treated with NOM. The mean age was 27.6±7.4 years. Bump explosions, mostly sharp objects (secondary blast injuries), were the main causes of injury (n=18, 52.9%). Other causes were low-velocity gunshot wounds, stab wound injuries, and shotgun injuries in 14 (41.2%), one (2.9%), and one (2.9%), respectively. The majority of patients (n=25, 55.9%) were admitted within 6-24 hours of the incident. The abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan revealed various injuries in all patients, including hemoperitoneum in 11 (32.4%), pneumoperitoneum in five (14.7%), liver injury in 15 (44.1%), foreign body attached to the wall colon in 23 (67.6%), kidney injury in two (5.9%), and splenic injury in one (2.9%). NOM was successful in 31 (91.2%) patients. NOM failed in three (8.8%). One patient was treated via the laparoscopic procedure, and two patients were treated with laparotomy procedures. Five (14.7%) cases required intensive care unit (ICU) admission, with no deaths or major complications. In univariate analysis, the presence of free intra-abdominal fluid (pneumoperitoneum) on the initial CT scan and the need for ICU admission were associated with NOM failure and were statistically significant (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support that some penetrating abdominal trauma patients can benefit from NOM. The goal of preventing unnecessary laparotomies should be aligned with a comprehensive comprehension of the clinical signs and symptoms of NOM failure and the necessity for surgical intervention. Serial abdominal examinations remain the foundation of selected NOM; nevertheless, radiological and laboratory tests can be important tools in decision-making. In this study, free intra-abdominal fluid on the initial CT scan and the need for ICU admission were associated with NOM failure.

Spread and feasibility of non-operative management (NOM) of traumatic splenic injuries in adults: a national survey

In hemodynamically stable adults sustaining a splenic trauma, non-operative management (NOM) represents the standard approach even in high-severity injuries. However, knowledge, structural, and logistic limitations still reduce its wider diffusion. This study aims to identify such issues to promote the safe and effective management of these injuries.A survey was developed using the SurveyMonkey® software and spread nationally in Italy. The survey was structured into: (1) Knowledge of classification systems; (2) Availability to refer patients; (3) Patients monitoring and follow-up; (4) Center-related.The survey was filled in by 327 surgeons, with a completeness rate of 63%. Three responders out of four are used to manage trauma patients. Despite most responders knowing the existing classifications, their use is still limited in daily practice. If a patient needs to be centralized, the concern about possible clinical deterioration represent the main obstacle to achieving a NOM. The lack of protocols does not allow standardization of patient surveillance according to the degree of injury. The imaging follow-up is not standardized as well, varying between computed tomography, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.The classification systems need to be spread to all the trauma-dedicated physicians, to speak a common language. A more rational centralization of patients should be promoted, ideally through agreements between peripheral and reference centers, both at regional and local level. Standardized protocols need to be shared nationally, as well as the clinical and imaging follow-up criteria should be adapted to the local features.