Starting the clock: defining nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury by time

Variation in the utilization of angioembolization for splenic injury in hospitals: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan

Aim

Substantial variations in the utilization of angioembolization have been reported internationally. However, the existence of variations in the utilization of angioembolization in Japan is currently unknown.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study using data from a nationwide trauma registry in Japan. Of the 4,896 registered adult patients with splenic injury, we investigated 3,319 patients in the top 25% of the hospitals that registered the highest number of splenic injury patients in the Japan Trauma Data Bank. The primary outcome of this study was initial angioembolization. We calculated the expected initial angioembolization rates using multiple regression analysis adjusted for patient factors. In addition, we evaluated the range of observed-to-expected initial splenic angioembolization ratio for each hospital. Moreover, we assessed whether this ratio was increased with time.

Results

The frequency of initial splenic angioembolization ranged from 0% to 52%. The median expected initial angioembolization rate, calculated through multiple logistic regression analysis, was 19.7%. The observed-to-expected initial splenic angioembolization ratio for each hospital ranged from 0 to 2.36. The observed initial angioembolization rate tended to increase with time (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Despite adjustment for patient factors, substantial variations were observed in the utilization of splenic angioembolization among hospitals in Japan.

Splenic artery embolization improves outcomes and decreases the length of stay in hemodynamically stable blunt splenic injuries - A level 1 Australian Trauma centre experience

BACKGROUND

Splenic injuries are the most common visceral injury following blunt abdominal trauma. Increasingly, non-operative management (NOM) and the use of adjunctive splenic angioembolization (ASE) is favoured over operative management (OM) for the hemodynamically stable patient. However, clinical predictors for successful NOM, particularly the role of ASE as an adjunct, remain poorly defined. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASE vs NOM.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical audit was performed of all patients admitted with blunt splenic injury (BSI) from January 2005 to January 2018 at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The primary outcome was ASE or NOM failure rate. Secondary outcomes were grade of splenic injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), length of hospital stay (LOS), and delayed OM or re-angioembolization rates.

RESULTS

Of 208 patients with BSI, 60 (29%) underwent OM, 54 (26%) ASE, and 94 (45%) NOM only. Patients were predominantly male 165 (79%), with a median age of 33 (IQR 24-51) years. The median ISS was 29 (20-38). There was no difference in the overall success rates for each modality of primary management (48 (89%) ASE vs 77 (82%) NOM, p = 0.374), though patients managed with ASE were older (38 vs 30 years, p = 0.029), had higher grade of splenic injury (grade ≥ IV 42 (78%) vs 8 (8.5%), p<0.001), with increased rates of haemo-peritoneum (46 (85%) vs 51 (54%), p<0.001) and contrast blush (42 (78%) vs 2 (2%), p<0.001). However, for grade III splenic injury, patients managed with ASE had a trend towards better outcome with no failures when compared to the NOM group (0 (0%) vs 8 (35%), p = 0.070) with a significant reduction in LOS (7.2 vs 10.8 days, p = 0.042). Furthermore, the ASE group overall had a significantly shorter LOS compared to the NOM group (10.0 vs 16.0 days, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

ASE as an adjunct to NOM significantly reduces the length of stay in BSI patients and is most successful in managing AAST grade III injuries.

Damage control surgery for splenic trauma: "preserve an organ - preserve a life"

The spleen is one of the most commonly injured solid organs of the abdominal cavity and an early diagnosis can reduce the associated mortality. Over the past couple of decades, management of splenic injuries has evolved to a prefered non-operative approach even in severely injured cases. However, the optimal surgical management of splenic trauma in severely injured patients remains controversial. This article aims to present an algorithm for the management of splenic trauma in severely injured patients, that includes basic principles of damage control surgery and is based on the experience obtained by the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Group (CTE) of Cali, Colombia. The choice between a conservative or a surgical approach depends on the hemodynamic status of the patient. In hemodynamically stable patients, a computed tomography angiogram should be performed to determine if non-operative management is feasible and if angioembolization is required. While hemodynamically unstable patients should be transferred immediately to the operating room for damage control surgery, which includes splenic packing and placement of a negative pressure dressing, followed by angiography with embolization of any ongoing arterial bleeding. It is our recommendation that both damage control principles and emerging endovascular technologies should be applied to achieve splenic salvage when possible. However, if surgical bleeding persists a splenectomy may be required as a definitive lifesaving maneuver.

Splenectomy proportions are still high in low-grade traumatic splenic injury

Objective

The spleen is the most vulnerable organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Spleen-preserving treatments are non-operative management with or without splenic angioembolization, partial splenectomy, and splenorrhaphy. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate of SPTs and to evaluate the usefulness of Injury Severity Score after traumatic splenic injury.

Material and Methods

We searched our institution's database between May 2012 and December 2015. Patients' clinicopathological features, surgeon's title, type of treatment, admission and discharge dates, duration of surgery, intensive care unit requirement, and Glasgow Coma Scale were recorded.

Results

The mean age of patients was 33.36±11.58 years. Of the 33 patients, 26 (78.8%) were males, and 7 (21.2%) were females. Thirty (90.9%) had total splenectomy (TS), and 3 (9.1%) had spleen preserving treatment (2 Nonoperative management and 1 partial splenectomy). No fatal hemorrhage developed after nonoperative management. Exitus rates were 5/30 (15.1%) and 0/3 in the total splenectomy and spleen preserving treatment groups, respectively. Of the 18 hemodynamically stable patients, only 2 (11.1%) had spleen preserving treatment. Of the 19 patients with grade I-III splenic injury, only 3 (15.8%) had spleen preserving treatment. For academic and non-academic surgeons, spleen preserving treatment rates were 3/11 (27.3%) and 0/22 (0%), respectively (p<0.05). Injury severity score and mean arterial pressure, number of transfusions, control hematocrit, and GCS had statistically significant relationships.

Conclusions

Spleen preserving treatment proportions were low after traumatic splenic injury. Following trauma, guidelines will not only improve spleen preservation rates but also improve the overall health status of the patients and it will also prevent complications of splenectomy.

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.

Observation Versus Embolization in Patients with Blunt Splenic Injury After Trauma: A Propensity Score Analysis

Background

Non-operative management (NOM) is the standard of care in hemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury after trauma. Splenic artery embolization (SAE) is reported to increase observation success rate. Studies demonstrating improved splenic salvage rates with SAE primarily compared SAE with historical controls. The aim of this study was to investigate whether SAE improves success rate compared to observation alone in contemporaneous patients with blunt splenic injury.

Methods

We included adult patients with blunt splenic injury admitted to five Level 1 Trauma Centers between January 2009 and December 2012 and selected for NOM. Successful treatment was defined as splenic salvage and no splenic re-intervention. We calculated propensity scores, expressing the probability of undergoing SAE, using multivariable logistic regression and created five strata based on the quintiles of the propensity score distribution. A weighted relative risk (RR) was calculated across strata to express the chances of success with SAE.

Results

Two hundred and six patients were included in the study. Treatment was successful in 180 patients: 134/146 (92 %) patients treated with observation and 48/57 (84 %) patients treated with SAE. The weighted RR for success with SAE was 1.17 (0.94–1.45); for complications, the weighted RR was 0.71 (0.41–1.22). The mean number of transfused blood products was 4.4 (SD 9.9) in the observation group versus 9.1 (SD 17.2) in the SAE group.

Conclusions

After correction for confounders with propensity score stratification technique, there was no significant difference between embolization and observation alone with regard to successful treatment in patients with blunt splenic injury after trauma.

Nonoperative management of splenic injuries: significance of age

BACKGROUND

In the nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injuries (BSI), the clinical relevance of age as a risk factor has not been well studied.

METHODS

Using the 2011 National Trauma Data Bank data set, age was analyzed both as a continuous variable and a categorical variable (group 1 [13-54 y], group 2 [55-74 y], and group 3 [≥75 y]). BSI severity was stratified by abbreviated injury scale (AIS): group 1 (AIS ≤2), group 2 (AIS 3), and group 3 (AIS ≥4). A semiparametric proportional odds model was used to model NOM outcomes and effects due to age and BSI severity.

RESULTS

Of 15,113 subjects, 15.3% failed NOM. The odds of failure increased by a factor of 1.014 for each year of age, or factor of 1.5 for groups 2 and 3 each. BSI severity groups 2 and 3 had increases in the odds of failure by factors of 3.9 and 13, respectively, compared with those of group 1. Most failures occurred by 48 h irrespective of age. The effect of age was most pronounced in age groups 2 and 3 with the most severe BSI, where a NOM failure rate of >50% was seen. Both age and failure of NOM were independent predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Age is associated with failure of NOM but its effect seems more clinically relevant only in high-grade BSI. Factors that could influence NOM success in elderly patients with high-grade injuries deserve further study.

Nonoperative management of splenic injury grade IV is safe using rigid protocol

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the protocol and experience of our service in the nonoperative management (NOM) of grade IV blunt splenic injuries.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study based on trauma registry of a university hospital between 1990-2010. Charts of all patients with splenic injury were reviewed and patients with grade IV lesions treated nonoperatively were included in the study.

RESULTS

ninety-four patients with grade IV blunt splenic injury were admitted during this period. Twenty-six (27.6%) met the inclusion criteria for NOM. The average systolic blood pressure on admission was 113.07 ± 22.22 mmHg, RTS 7.66 ± 0.49 and ISS 18.34 ± 3.90. Ten patients (38.5%) required blood transfusion, with a mean of 1.92 ± 1.77 packed red cells per patient. Associated abdominal injuries were present in two patients (7.7%). NOM failed in two patients (7.7%), operated on due to worsening of abdominal pain and hypovolemic shock. No patient developed complications related to the spleen and there were no deaths in this series. Average length of hospital stay was 7.12 ± 1.98 days.

CONCLUSION

Nonoperative treatment of grade IV splenic injuries in blunt abdominal trauma is safe when a rigid protocol is followed.

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.