Management of adult blunt hepatic trauma:

In Solid Organ Injury Patients Requiring Blood Transfusion, Hemostatic Procedures are Associated with Improved Survival Over Observation

Introduction

Selective nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard of care for blunt solid organ injury (SOI). Hemodynamic instability is a contraindication for NOM, but it is unclear whether the need for blood transfusion should be a criterion for instability. This study looks at the outcome of blood-transfused SOI patients to determine whether NOM is safe for this group.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study using the National Trauma Data Bank years 2017 through 2019. We selected patients with blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries. Within this group, we compared the mortality for those managed with NOM versus the hemostatic procedures of laparotomy and angioembolization. Significance for univariate analysis is tested with Chi-square for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis is performed with Cox proportional hazards regression with time-dependent covariate.

Results

108,718 (3.5%) patients for the years 2017 through 2019 had a SOI. 20,569 (18.9%) of these received at least one unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) within the first 4 h. Of the SOI patients who received blood, 8264 (40.2%) underwent laparotomy only, 2924 (14.2%) underwent embolization only, and 1119 (5.4%) underwent both procedures. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of death for transfused SOI patients who underwent laparotomy only, embolization only, and both procedures are 0.93 (P = not significant), 0.27 (P < 0.001), and 0.48 (P < 0.001), respectively. The ORs of death with laparotomy for patients receiving >1 through 4 units are 0.87, 0.78, 0.75, and 0.72, respectively (P ≤ 0.01 for all). For embolization, the ORs are 0.27, 0.30, 0.30, and 0.30, respectively (P < 0.001 for all).

Conclusion

Laparotomy is independently associated with survival for patients who receive >1 unit of PRBCs. Angioembolization is independently associated with survival for the entire cohort, including transfused patients. Given the protective association of laparotomy in the blood-transfused SOI group, need for blood transfusion should be considered a meaningful index of instability and a relative indication for laparotomy. The protective association with angioembolization supports current practices for angioembolization of high-risk patients in the transfused and nontransfused groups.

Scoring system for traumatic liver injury (SSTLI) in polytraumatic patients: a predictor of mortality

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine prognostic factors in polytraumatic patients with liver injury and to develop a scoring system for traumatic liver injury (SSTLI) to predict mortality.

METHODS

The medical records of 175 patients treated for traumatic liver injury from July 2009 to April 2013 were reviewed. The primary outcome variable was hospital mortality. All risk factors were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. The SSTLI was created based on the predictive power of each factor.

RESULTS

Age, injury severity score (ISS), trauma and injury severity score, the shock index, and the volume of packed red blood cells transfused were strong predictors of mortality. We hypothesized that the SSTLI would use five clinical measures (total bilirubin, prothrombin time, serum creatinine, age, and ISS). Each measure was scored 0-1 (age and ISS) or 0-3 (total bilirubin, prothrombin time, and creatinine), with 3 indicating the most severe derangement. The receiver-operating characteristic curve of the SSTLI was significant at post-traumatic days 0, 1, 3, and 5 [area under the curve (AUC), 0.830; AUC, 0.912; AUC, 0.941; and AUC, 0.930, respectively]. A value of 5 points was the threshold for reliability dividing low-risk (<5) from high-risk (≥5) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSTLI may be available to predict mortality in polytraumatic patients with liver injury, although external validation is needed before widespread implementation.

Primary hepatic artery embolization in pediatric blunt hepatic trauma

Non-operative management of isolated blunt hepatic trauma is recommended except when hemodynamic instability requires immediate laparotomy. Hepatic artery angioembolization is increasingly used for hepatic injuries with ongoing bleeding as demonstrated by contrast extravasation on the CT scan. It is used primarily or after laparotomy to control ongoing hemorrhage. Hepatic angioembolization as part of multimodality management of hepatic trauma is reported mainly in adults, with few pediatric case reports. We describe our institution experience with primary pediatric hepatic angioembolization and review the literature with regard to indications and complications. Two cases (3 and 8 years old), with high-grade blunt hepatic injuries with contrast extravasation on the CT scan were successfully managed by emergency primary hepatic angioembolization with minimal morbidity and avoided laparotomy. To date, the only reports of pediatric hepatic angioembolization for trauma are 5 cases for acute bleeding and 15 delayed cases for pseudoaneurysm. The role of hepatic angioembolization in the presence of an arterial blush on CT in adults is accepted, but contested in a pediatric series, despite higher transfusion rate and mortality rate. We propose that hepatic angioembolization should be considered adjunct treatment, in lieu of, or in addition to emergency laparotomy for hemostasis in pediatric blunt hepatic injury.

Emergency strategies and trends in the management of liver trauma

The liver is the most frequently injured organ during abdominal trauma. The management of hepatic trauma has undergone a paradigm shift over the past several decades, with mandatory operation giving way to nonoperative treatment. Better understanding of the mechanisms and grade of liver injury aids in the initial assessment and establishment of a management strategy. Hemodynamically unstable patients should undergo focused abdominal sonography for trauma, whereas stable patients may undergo computed tomography, the standard examination protocol. The grade of liver injury alone does not accurately predict the need for operation, and nonoperative management is rapidly becoming popular for high-grade injuries. Hemodynamic instability with positive focused abdominal sonography for trauma and peritonitis is an indicator of the need for emergent operative intervention. The damage control concept is appropriate for the treatment of major liver injuries and is associated with significant survival advantages compared with traditional prolonged surgical techniques. Although surgical intervention for hepatic trauma is not as common now as it was in the past, current trauma surgeons should be familiar with the emergency surgical skills necessary to manage complex hepatic injuries, such as packing, Pringle maneuver, selective vessel ligation, resectional debridement, and parenchymal sutures. The present review presents emergency strategies and trends in the management of liver trauma.