Is It safe? Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries in geriatric trauma patients

Laparoscopic splenectomy after trauma: Who, when and how. A systematic review

Importance:

A deep knowledge of the indication for laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) in trauma case can lead trauma surgeon to offer in a wider number of situations a minimally invasive approach to a common injuries.

Objective:

To present and review the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic approach for spleen trauma and to identify patient whose can benefit from a minimally invasive approach versus patient that need open surgery to assess the whole severity of trauma.

Evidence Review:

A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA statement in order to identify articles reporting LS after trauma. A literature search was performed through MEDLINE (through PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2018. Studies conducted on animals were not considered. All other laparoscopic procedures for spleen trauma were excluded.

Results:

Nineteen articles were included in this study, reporting 212 LS after trauma. The most study includes blunt trauma patient. All LS were performed in haemodynamically stable patient. Post-operative complications were reported in all articles with a median post-operative morbidity rate of 30 patients (14.01%), including 16 (7.5%) post-operative deaths.

Conclusions and Relevance:

This article reports the feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive approach for common trauma injuries which can help non-advanced laparoscopic skill trauma surgeon to develop the best indication to when to adopt this kind of approach.

Octogenarians with blunt splenic injury: not all geriatrics are the same

Geriatric trauma patients (GTP) (age ≥ 65 years) with blunt splenic injury (BSI) have up to a 6% failure rate of non-operative management (NOM). GTPs failing NOM have a similar mortality rate compared to GTPs managed successfully with NOM. However, it is unclear if this remains true in octogenarians (aged 80–89 years). We hypothesized that the failure rate for NOM in octogenarians would be similar to their younger geriatric cohort, patients aged 65–79 years; however risk of mortality in octogenarians who fail NOM would be higher than that of octogenarians managed successfully with NOM. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) was queried for patients with BSI. Those undergoing splenectomy within 6 h were excluded to select for patients undergoing NOM. Patients aged 65–79 years (young GTPs) were compared to octogenarians. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine the risk for failed NOM and mortality. From 43,041 BSI patients undergoing NOM, 3660 (8.5%) were aged 65–79 years and 1236 (2.9%) were octogenarians. Both groups had a similar median Injury Severity Score (ISS) (p = 0.10) and failure rate of NOM (6.6% young GTPs vs. 6.8% octogenarians p = 0.82). From those failing NOM, octogenarians had similar units of blood products transfused (p > 0.05) and a higher mortality rate (40.5% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001), compared to young GTPs. Independent risk factors for failing NOM in octogenarians included ≥ 1 unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC) (p = 0.039) within 24 h of admission. Octogenarians who failed NOM had a higher mortality rate compared to octogenarians managed successfully with NOM (40.5% vs 23.6% p = 0.001), which persisted in a multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.25, CI 1.37–3.70, p < 0.001). Late failure of NOM ≥ 24 h (vs. early failure) was not associated with increased risk of mortality (p = 0.88), but ≥ 1 unit of PRBC transfused had higher risk (OR 1.88, CI 1.20–2.95, p = 0.006). Compared to young GTPs with BSI, octogenarians have a similar rate of failed NOM. Octogenarians with BSI who fail NOM have over a twofold higher risk of mortality compared to those managed successfully with NOM. PRBC transfusion increases risk for mortality. Therefore, clinicians should consider failure of NOM earlier in the octogenarian population to mitigate the risk of increased mortality.

Age is a predictor for mortality after blunt splenic injury

BACKGROUND

While the incidence of geriatric trauma continues to increase, the management of high-grade blunt splenic injury (BSI) in the elderly remains controversial. Among this population, data evaluating survival rates following non-operative and operative management are inconsistent. We analyzed mortality risk in geriatric patients with high-grade BSI based on operative vs. non-operative management.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Database identified patients with isolated, high-grade (AIS ≥ 3) BSI from 2014 to 2015. Patients were stratified into three groups: non-elderly (<65 years), elderly (65-79 years), and advanced age (80 years and older). Each age group was stratified into three management groups: non-operative (including embolization), initial operative management (OR within 24 h), and failed non-operative management. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared. Multivariable logistic regression estimated association with mortality.

RESULTS

5560 patients with isolated, high-grade BSI were identified. In the group that failed NOM, mortality was 2% in non-elderly patients, versus 22.2% in elderly patients and 50% in patients of advanced age (p < .01). In this group, patients over 80 years old spent an average of 6.5 days longer in the ICU vs. non-elderly patients (median 10.5 days, IQR [6.75, 19.5] vs. 4 days, IQR [3,6], p = 0.02). In patients with isolated, high grade BSI, age was independently associated with mortality (AOR 1.02; p < 0.01). Elderly patients who required surgery were over three times more likely to die (AOR 3.39; p < 0.01). Advanced age patients who required surgery were over eight times more likely to die (AOR 8.1; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with BSI, age is independently associated with death in both operative and non-operative cases.