Non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: how far can we go to save splenic function?

Outcomes of selective non-operative management in adults with abdominal gunshot wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs), a clinically devastating injury, can result in a variety of severe and lethal complications. Traditionally, exploratory laparotomy is the first-line approach for the management of abdominal GSWs, but it is associated with a considerable amount of unnecessary surgeries. At present, selective non-operative management (SNOM) of abdominal GSWs is becoming an effective and well-recognized approach, but it remains widely disputed since many surgeons are skeptical about the validity of SNOM in clinical practice. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the outcomes of SNOM and immediate laparotomy in patients with GSWs by collecting the currently available evidence.

METHODS

The PubMed , EMBASE , and Cochrane Library databases were searched. A random-effects model was employed. A pooled proportion with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Overall, 53 studies involving 60 291 participants were included. The pooled proportions of SNOM and SNOM failure were 27.0% (95% CI=24.0-30.0%) and 10.0% (95% CI=7.0-13.0%), respectively. The pooled mortality after SNOM and SNOM failure were 0.0% (95% CI=0.0-1.0%) and 0.0% (95% CI=0.0-0.0%), respectively. The pooled proportions of immediate laparotomy and unnecessary immediate laparotomy were 73.0% (95% CI=70.0-76.0%) and 10.0% (95% CI=8.0-13.0%), respectively. The pooled mortality after immediate laparotomy and unnecessary immediate laparotomy was 10.0% (95% CI=8.0-13.0%) and 0.0% (95% CI=0.0-1.0%), respectively. Heterogeneity was statistically significant in nearly all meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Immediate laparotomy is still the mainstay approach for the management of abdominal GSWs. Approximately one-third of patients with abdominal GSWs undergo SNOM. SNOM failure is not frequent, and its related mortality is also rare.

Conservative Management of Splenic Injury in Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Road traffic accidents are the greatest cause of death worldwide. Most intra-abdominal injuries caused by blunt abdominal trauma have been treated surgically for a very long period. Over the past few decades, conservative care has gained in popularity and effectiveness as a treatment choice for blunt abdominal trauma.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of conservative management in patients suffering from splenic injury in blunt abdominal trauma.

METHODS

The study included 62 cases of blunt abdominal trauma treated non-operatively in the general surgery department of the Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar between June 2021 and December 2022.

RESULTS

Minimal hemoperitoneum was observed in 47 (75.8%) cases, moderate hemoperitoneum was noted in 11 (17.7%) cases, and 4 (6.4%) patients didn't have free fluid in the abdomen. There was no massive hemoperitoneum among the study patients. No major complications were observed during the study period. Only 7 (11.3%) cases develop minimal pleural effusion while 2 (3.2%) patients developed splenic abscess. Mortality was observed in only 1 (1.6%) case.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative management is a safe and efficient strategy and should be considered as a first line of treatment for all hemodynamically stable patients who suffered blunt splenic injury.

Post-traumatic Splenic Injury Outcomes for Nonoperative and Operative Management: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Splenectomies are widely performed, but there exists controversy regarding care for splenic injury patients. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature over the last 20 years for operative management (OM) versus nonoperative management (NOM) versus splenic artery embolization (SAE) for traumatic splenic injuries and associated outcomes.

METHODS

A review of literature was performed following the PRISMA guidelines through a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, JAMA Network, and SAGE journals from 2000 to 2020 regarding splenic injury in trauma patients and their management. Articles were then selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria with GRADE criteria used on the included articles to assess quality.

RESULTS

Twenty retrospective cohorts and one prospective cohort assessed patients who received OM versus NOM or SAE. Multiple studies indicated that NOM, in properly selected patients, provided better outcomes than its operative counterpart.

CONCLUSION

This review provides additional evidence to support the NOM of splenic injuries for hemodynamically stable patients with benign abdomens as it accounts for consistently shorter hospital length of stay, fewer complications, and lower mortality than OM. For hemodynamically unstable patients, management continues to be intervention with surgery. More studies are needed to further investigate outcomes of post-splenectomy patients based on grade of injury, hemodynamic status, type of procedure (i.e., SAE), and failure of NOM in order to provide additional evidence and improve outcomes for this patient population.

Outcomes of patients with thoraco-abdominal gunshot wounds operatively managed at a district hospital in Cape Town, South Africa

AIM

Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the first four decades of life. Thoracoabdominal gunshot wounds carry a significant risk of mortality. This risk of death is reduced if patients are managed in dedicated units. This study examines the outcome of these patients managed in a district level hospital.

METHOD

In this retrospective review, patients with thoracoabdominal gunshot wounds were identified from operating room registry for the period of January 2015 to December 2018. Data was collected retrospectively from folders and analysed for the primary outcome of mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight thoracoabdominal gunshot wounds were managed operatively over the period described. Only six patients were female. The median age was 29.5 years. Fourteen patients required postoperative transfer to a level 1 trauma unit. Thirteen patients died, nine at the district hospital and four at the level 1 unit. Significant differences in organ injuries were noted in the patients that died compared to the survivors.

DISCUSSION

The in-hospital mortality rate of patients managed at the district hospital was 13.2% which is comparable to international rates of 12-18%. However, the subset of patients that required postoperative transfer to a level 1 trauma unit had a high mortality rate of 28.6%. The DH is committed to managing unstable and unresponsive patients once they present. Improved mortality rates will only occur with better prehospital transport policies and by equipping the DH to manage these patients postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Management of these patients can be successful at a district hospital. However, significant obstacles exist to their optimal care, as demonstrated by the high mortality patients requiring postoperative transfer.

Predictors of surgical management of high grade blunt splenic injuries in adult trauma patients: a 5-year retrospective cohort study from an academic level I trauma center

Backgrounds

Splenic injury accounts for 40% of all injuries after blunt abdominal trauma. Blunt splenic injury in hemodynamically unstable patients is preferably treated by splenectomy. Nowadays hemodynamically stable patients with low grade splenic injuries are mostly treated by non-operative management (NOM). However no consensus exists about the management of high grade splenic injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze patients with high grade splenic injuries in our institution.

Methods

We retrospectively included all patients with a splenic injury presented to our level I trauma center during the 5-year period from January 1, 2012, until December 31, 2017. Baseline characteristics, data regarding complications and mortality were collected from the electronic patient registry. Patients were grouped based on splenic injury and the treatment they received.

Results

A total of 123 patients were included, of which 93 (75.6%) were male with a median age of 31 (24–52) and a median injury severity score of 27 (17–34). High grade injuries (n = 28) consisted of 20 Grade IV injuries and 8 grade V injuries. Splenectomy was required in 15/28 (53.6%) patients, of whom all remained hemodynamically unstable after resuscitation, including all grade V injuries. A total of 13 patients with high grade injuries were treated with spleen preserving therapy. Seven of these patients received angio-embolization. One patient went for laparotomy and the spleen was treated with a hemostatic agent. Secondary hemorrhage was present in 3 of these patients (initial treatment: 1 embolization/ 2 observational), resulting in a success rate of 76.9%. There is no mortality seen in patient with high grade splenic injuries.

Conclusion

Non-operative treatment in high grade splenic injuries is a safe treatment modality in hemodynamically stable patients. Hemodynamic status and peroperative bleeding, not injury severity or splenic injury grade were the drivers for surgical management by splenectomy. This selected cohort of patients must be closely monitored to prevent adverse outcomes from secondary delayed bleeding in case of non-operative management.

Selective non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: a systematic review

Introduction

The treatment of abdominal solid organ injuries has shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). However, the feasibility of NOM for penetrating splenic trauma is unclear and outcome is believed to be worse than NOM for penetrating liver and kidney injuries. Hence, the aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility of selective NOM in penetrating splenic injury.

Methods

A review of literature was performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on adult patients treated by NOM for splenic injuries were included and outcome was documented and compared.

Results

Five articles from exclusively level-1 and level-2-traumacenters were selected and a total of 608 cases of penetrating splenic injury were included. Nonoperative management was applied in 123 patients (20.4%, range 17–33%). An overall failure rate of NOM of 18% was calculated. Mortality was not seen in patients selected for nonoperative management. Contra-indicatons for NOM included hemodynamic instability, absence of abdominal CT-scanning to rule out concurrent injuries and peritonitis.

Conclusions

This review demonstrates that non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma in highly selected patients has been utilized in several well-equipped and experienced trauma centers. NOM of penetrating splenic injury in selected patients is not associated with increased morbidity nor mortality. Data on the less well-equipped and experienced trauma centers are not available. More prospective studies are required to further define exact selection criteria for non-operative management in splenic trauma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00068-019-01117-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Non-operative management of blunt splenic injury: is it really so extensively feasible? a critical appraisal of a single-center experience

Introduction

The spleen is one of the most commonly injured organ following blunt abdominal trauma. Splenic injuries may occur in isolation or in association with other intra-and extra-abdominal injury. Nonoperative management of blunt injury to the spleen has become routine in children. In adult most minor splenic injuries are readily treated nonoperatively but controversy exists regarding the role of nonoperative management for higher grade injuries above all in multi-trauma patients. The aim of this study is the assessment of splenic trauma treatment, with particular attention to conservative treatment, its limits, its efficiency, and its safety in multi-trauma patient or in a severe trauma patient.

Methods

The present research focused on a retrospective review of patients with splenic injury. The research was performed by analyzing data of the trauma registry of St. Andrea University Hospital in Rome. The St. Andrea University Hospital trauma registry includes 1859. The variables taken into account were spleen injury and general injuries, age, sex, cause and dynamic of trauma, hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cells count, INR, number and time blood transfusion, hemodynamic stability, type of treatment provided, hospitalization period, morbidity and mortality. Assessment of splenic injuries was evaluated according to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).

Results

The analysis among the general population of spleen trauma patients identified 68 patients with a splenic injury representing the 41.2% of all abdomen injury. The Average age was of 37.01 ± 17.18 years. The Average ISS value was of 22.88 ± 12.85; mediana of 24.50 (range 4-66). The average Spleen AIS value was of 3.13 ± 0.88; mediana 3.00 (range 2-5). The overall mortality ratio was of 19.1% (13 patients). The average ISS value in patients who died was of 41.92 ± 12.48, whereas in patients who survided was of 23.33 ± 10.15. The difference was considered to be statistically significant (p <0.001). The relashionship between the ISS and AIS values in patients who died was considered directly proportional but not statistically significant (Pearson test AIS/ISS = 0.132, p = n.s.). The initial management was a conservative treatment in 27 patients (39.7%) of them 4 patients (15%) failed, in the other 41 cases urgent splenectomies were performed. The average spleen AIS in all the patients who underwent splenectomy was 3.61 ± 0.63 whereas in the patients who were not treated surgically was 2.42 ± 0.69. The difference was deemed statistically significant (p <0.001).

Conclusion

Splenic injury, as reported in our statistic as well as in literature, is the most common injury in closed abdominal trauma. Nonoperative management of blunt injury to the spleen in adults has been applied with increasing frequency. However, the criteria for nonoperative management are controversial. The preference of a conservative treatment must be based on the hemodynamic stability indices as well as on the spleen lesion severity and on the general trauma severity. The conservative treatment represent a feasible and safe therapeutic alternative even in case of severe lesions in politrauma patients, but the choice of the treatment form requires an assessment for each singular case.