Nonoperative management of splenic injury in closely monitored patients with reduced consciousness is safe and feasible

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.

Non-operative management for abdominal solidorgan injuries: A literature review

The philosophy of abdominal injury management is currently changing from mandatory exploration to selective non-operative management (NOM). The patient with hemodynamic stability and absence of peritonitis should be managed non-operatively. NOM has an overall success rate of 80%-90%. It also can reduce the rate of non-therapeutic abdominal exploration, preserve organ function, and has been defined as the safest choice in experienced centers. However, NOM carries a risk of missed injury such as hollow organ injury, diaphragm injury, and delayed hemorrhage. Adjunct therapies such as angiography with embolization, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stenting, and percutaneous drainage could increase the chances of successful NOM. This article aims to describe the evolution of NOM and define its place in specific abdominal solid organ injury for the practitioner who faces this problem.

Trauma Team Activation: Which Surgical Capability Is Immediately Required in Polytrauma? A Retrospective, Monocentric Analysis of Emergency Procedures Performed on 751 Severely Injured Patients

There has been an ongoing discussion as to which interventions should be carried out by an “organ specialist” (for example, a thoracic or visceral surgeon) or by a trauma surgeon with appropriate general surgical training in polytrauma patients. However, there are only limited data about which exact emergency interventions are immediately carried out. This retrospective data analysis of one Level 1 trauma center includes adult polytrauma patients, as defined according to the Berlin definition. The primary outcome was the four most common emergency surgical interventions (ESI) performed during primary resuscitation. Out of 1116 patients, 751 (67.3%) patients (male gender, 530, 74.3%) met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 39 years (IQR: 25, 58) and the median injury severity score (ISS) was 38 (IQR: 29, 45). In total, 711 (94.7%) patients had at least one ESI. The four most common ESI were the insertion of a chest tube (48%), emergency laparotomy (26.3%), external fixation (23.5%), and the insertion of an intracranial pressure probe (ICP) (19.3%). The initial emergency treatment of polytrauma patients include a limited spectrum of potential life-saving interventions across distinct body regions. Polytrauma care would benefit from the 24/7 availability of a trauma team able to perform basic potentially life-saving surgical interventions, including chest tube insertion, emergency laparotomy, placing external fixators, and ICP insertion.

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.

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.