Routine follow-up imaging has limited advantage in the non-operative management of blunt splenic injury in adult patients

Follow-up computed tomography and unexpected hemostasis in non-operative management of pediatric blunt liver and spleen injury

PURPOSE

While follow-up CT and prophylactic embolization with angiography are often conducted during non-operative management (NOM) for BLSI, particularly in a high-grade injury, the utility of early repeated CT for preventing unexpected hemorrhage remains unclear. This study aimed to elucidate whether early follow-up computerized tomography (CT) within 7 days after admission would decrease unexpected hemostatic procedures on pediatric blunt liver and spleen injury (BLSI).

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter observational cohort study on pediatric patients with BLSI (2008-2019) was conducted on those who underwent NOM, in whom the timing of follow-up CT were decided by treating physicians. The incidence of unexpected hemostatic procedure (laparotomy and/or emergency angiography for ruptured pseudoaneurysm) and complications related to BLSI were compared between patients with and without early follow-up CT within 7 days. Inverse probability weighting with propensity scores adjusted patient demographics, comorbidities, mechanism and severity of injury, initial resuscitation, and institutional characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 1320 included patients, 552 underwent early follow-up CT. Approximately 25% of patients underwent angiography on the day of admission. The incidence of unexpected hemostasis was similar between patients with and without early repeat CT (8 [1.4%] vs. 6 [0.8%]; adjusted OR, 1.44 [0.62-3.34]; p = 0.40). Patients with repeat CT scans more frequently underwent multiple angiographies (OR, 2.79 [1.32-5.88]) and had more complications related to BLSI, particularly bile leak (OR, 1.73 [1.04-2.87]).

CONCLUSION

Follow-up CT scans within 7 days was not associated with reduced unexpected hemostasis in NOM for pediatric BLSI.

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.

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.

Splenic trauma: endovascular treatment approach

The spleen is a commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Splenic preservation, however, is important for immune function and prevention of overwhelming infection from encapsulated organisms. Splenic artery embolization (SAE) for high-grade splenic injury has, therefore, increasingly become an important component of non-operative management (NOM). SAE decreases the blood pressure to the spleen to allow healing, but preserves splenic perfusion via robust collateral pathways. SAE can be performed proximally in the main splenic artery, more distally in specific injured branches, or a combination of both proximal and distal embolization. No definitive evidence from available data supports benefits of one strategy over the other. Particles, coils and vascular plugs are the major embolic agents used. Incorporation of SAE in the management of blunt splenic trauma has significantly improved success rates of NOM and spleen salvage. Failure rates generally increase with higher injury severity grades; however, current management results in overall spleen salvage rates of over 85%. Complication rates are low, and primarily consist of rebleeding, parenchymal infarction or abscess. Splenic immune function is felt to be preserved after embolization with no guidelines for prophylactic vaccination against encapsulated bacteria; however, a complete understanding of post-embolization immune changes remains an area in need of further investigation. This review describes the history of SAE from its inception to its current role and indications in the management of splenic trauma. The endovascular approach, technical details, and outcomes are described with relevant examples. SAE is has become an important part of a multidisciplinary strategy for management of complex trauma patients.

Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: evolution, results and controversies

The spleen is one of the most frequently affected organs in blunt abdominal trauma. Since Upadhyaya, the treatment of splenic trauma has undergone important changes. Currently, the consensus is that every splenic trauma presenting with hemodynamic stability should be initially treated nonoperatively, provided that the hospital has adequate structure and the patient does not present other conditions that indicate abdominal exploration. However, several topics regarding the nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic trauma are still controversial. Splenic angioembolization is a very useful tool for NOM, but there is no consensus on its precise indications. There is no definition in the literature as to how NOM should be conducted, neither about the periodicity of hematimetric control, the transfusion threshold that defines NOM failure, when to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, the need for control imaging, the duration of bed rest, and when it is safe to discharge the patient. The aim of this review is to make a critical analysis of the most recent literature on this topic, exposing the state of the art in the NOM of splenic trauma.

Early hospital discharge following non-operative management of blunt liver and splenic trauma: A pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the acceptance of non-operative management (NOM), there is no consensus on the optimal length of hospital stay in patients with blunt liver and splenic injury (BLSI). Recent studies on pediatric patients have demonstrated the safety of early discharge following NOM for BLSI. We aimed at evaluating the feasibility and safety of early discharge in adult patients with BLSI following NOM in a randomized controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After initial assessment and management, patients aged 18-60 years with BLSI planned for NOM were randomized into 2 groups: Group A (test group; discharge day 3), and Group B (control group; discharge day 5). Standard NOM protocol was followed. These patients were discharged on the proposed day if they met the pre-defined discharge criteria. All patients were followed at days 7, 15, and 30 of discharge.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were recruited, 30 randomized to each arm. Most patients were males and aged less than 30 years. Road traffic injury was the most common mode of injury. Both groups were comparable in demography and injury-related parameters. 27 patients (90%) from group A and 28 patients (93%) from group B were discharged on the proposed day. Three patients had unplanned hospital visits for reasons unrelated to BLSI. All patients were asymptomatic and had a normal examination during their scheduled follow-up visits.

CONCLUSION

Adult patients undergoing NOM for BLSI can be safely discharged after 48 h of in-hospital observation, provided other injuries precluding discharge do not exist.

Value of repeat CT for nonoperative management of patients with blunt liver and spleen injury: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of routine repeat computed tomography (CT) for nonoperative management (NOM) of adults with blunt liver and/or spleen injury.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental and observational studies of repeat CT in adult patients with blunt abdominal injury. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from their inception to October 2020 using Cochrane guidelines. Primary outcomes were change in clinical management (e.g., emergency surgery, embolization, blood transfusion, clinical surveillance), mortality, and complications. Secondary outcomes were hospital readmission and length of stay.

RESULTS

Search results yielded 1611 studies of which 28 studies including 2646 patients met our inclusion criteria. The majority reported on liver (n = 9) or spleen injury (n = 16) or both (n = 3). No RCTs were identified. Meta-analyses were not possible because no study performed direct comparisons of study outcomes across intervention groups. Only seven of the twenty-eight studies reported whether repeat CT was routine or prompted by clinical indication. In these 7 studies, among the 254 repeat CT performed, 188 (74%) were routine and 8 (4%) of these led to a change in clinical management. Of the 66 (26%) repeated CT prompted by clinical indication, 31 (47%) led to a change in management. We found no data allowing comparison of any other outcomes across intervention groups.

CONCLUSION

Routine repeat CT without clinical indication is not useful in the management of patients with liver and/or spleen injury. However, effect estimates were imprecise and included studies were of low methodological quality. Given the risks of unnecessary radiation and costs associated with repeat CT, future research should aim to estimate the frequency of such practices and assess practice variation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Level II.