Splenic injury. An assessment of splenic conservation

Vaccination of asplenic or hyposplenic adults

Background

Sepsis is a feared complication in patients with an absent or dysfunctioning spleen.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken to identify recommendations for vaccination in asplenic or hyposplenic adults, and published data regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines in reducing the incidence of infections, and vaccine failures.

Results

Various committees and organizations recommend that the pneumococcal, meningococcal and Haemophilus influenza vaccine, plus booster doses, should be administered to patients with an absent or dysfunctional spleen. However, adherence to such recommendations varies. Furthermore, vaccine failures still occur in a subset of properly immunized individuals. Immunocompromised individuals, in particular, have a greater risk of inadequate antibody response.

Conclusion

Immunization is partially responsible for the observed reduction in sepsis after splenectomy.

An audit of splenectomies in a teaching hospital in North India. Are postsplenectomy guidelines being complied with?

AIMS

Patients with an absent or dysfunctional spleen are at risk of infection by encapsulated and other bacteria. Overwhelming postsplenectomy infection (OPSI) causes most concern because it can result in significant mortality. A retrospective review of splenectomised patients in a tertiary care setting over an eight year period was carried out to determine whether current postsplenectomy guidelines were being followed.

METHODS

The cases were identified from the medical records and pathology files and data such as the reason for splenectomy, the preventive measures taken regarding vaccination, and antibiotic prophylaxis, together with their documentation in the discharge notes were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty six patients were studied. Trauma, both blunt and penetrating, was the most common reason for splenectomy. Thirty six patients received pneumococcal vaccination, with 20 patients having no mention of vaccination in their case notes. The discharge notes of 50 patients mentioned their splenectomised status; however, documentation of vaccination details in the discharge summary was poor, with only three patients having the relevant information recorded. Documentation of the need for future vaccination and precautions required in the asplenic condition was also lacking. Nine patients had postsplenectomy complications, although there were no cases of OPSI.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to standard guidelines for the management of splenectomised patients was unsatisfactory. There is a need for an improvement of the vaccination rate and careful documentation of this important health risk in the discharge summaries. Maintenance of a splenectomy registry could aid in optimising the management of these patients.

Adult splenic injuries: treatment patterns and predictive indicators

BACKGROUND

With the trend towards conservation in splenic trauma, the ability to identify a group of patients for whom we can safely offer conservative treatment becomes an important factor.

METHODS

Data were reviewed from the trauma register at the Auckland Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, in an attempt to isolate any predictive factors that may allow more appropriate allocation of treatment modalities in the future. Methods of treatment were determined and the success or failure of conservative management noted. Differences in the demographics, Injury Severity Score (ISS) and computed tomographic (CT) findings were particularly sought.

RESULTS

Over a period of 111 weeks 48 patients were admitted with splenic injuries. Fifteen (31.2%) had immediate splenectomy, 27 (56.2%) were initially treated non-operatively and six (10.1%) died pre-operatively. Of the non-operative group eight (29.6%) failed this management at an average of 4.125 days into their hospital stay. No differences were found in age, mechanism, gender or ISS between the failed and successfully treated group. Using the Buntain classification of CT-graded splenic injury, 13 (87%) who had successful non-operative treatment had a grade II or III compared with six (86%) who failed this management being grade IV.

CONCLUSION

Although these results did not reach statistical significance, by coupling the trends seen together with other work, CT grading of splenic injury is a predictive indicator and does appear to have a role in the early allocation of patients to appropriate treatment plans.

Recurrent traumatic splenic rupture two years after non-operative treatment of splenic trauma

Non-operative and conservative surgical management are now the preferred methods of treatment for blunt splenic trauma in children and adults. These conservative strategies evolved as the risk of late septic complications following splenectomy for trauma became apparent. Although recurrent splenic trauma following conservative management of the ruptured spleen is rare, its surgical management may pose some difficult problems. We present a case in which a second episode of splenic trauma required surgery, two years after the successful non-operative management of the first splenic injury.