BACKGROUND: The exact value of follow-up ultrasonography and computed tomography in the non-operative management of blunt splenic injuries is not yet defined. Although follow-up studies have been recommended to detect possible complications of the initial injury, evidence shows that routine follow-up CT scans usually do not affect management of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether follow-up imaging influences the management of patients with blunt splenic injury. METHODS: Between 1995 and 1999, 155 trauma patients were admitted with splenic trauma to a major trauma center. Excluded from the study were trauma patients with penetrating injuries, children, and those who underwent immediate laparotomy due to hemodynamic instability or associated injuries. The remaining trauma patients were managed conservatively. Splenic injury was suspected by focused abdominal sonography for trauma, upon admission, and confirmed by CT scan. The severity of splenic injury was graded from I to V. The clinical outcome was obtained from medical records. RESULTS: We identified 32 adult patients (27 males and 5 females) with blunt splenic injuries who were managed non-operatively. In two patients it was not successful, and splenectomy was performed because of hemodynamic deterioration. The remaining 30 stable patients were divided into two groups: those who had only the initial ultrasound and CT scan with no follow-up studies (n = 8), and those who underwent repeat follow-up ultrasound or CT scan studies (n = 22). The severity of injury was similar in both groups in the second group follow-up studies showed normal spleens in 2 patients, improvement in 11, no change in 8, and deterioration in one. All patients in both groups were managed successfully with good clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: In the present series the follow-up radiological studies did not affect patient management. Follow-up imaging can be omitted in clinically stable patients with blunt splenic trauma grade I-III.
BACKGROUND: The exact value of follow-up ultrasonography and computed tomography in the non-operative management of blunt splenic injuries is not yet defined. Although follow-up studies have been recommended to detect possible complications of the initial injury, evidence shows that routine follow-up CT scans usually do not affect management of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether follow-up imaging influences the management of patients with blunt splenic injury. METHODS: Between 1995 and 1999, 155 traumapatients were admitted with splenic trauma to a major trauma center. Excluded from the study were traumapatients with penetrating injuries, children, and those who underwent immediate laparotomy due to hemodynamic instability or associated injuries. The remaining traumapatients were managed conservatively. Splenic injury was suspected by focused abdominal sonography for trauma, upon admission, and confirmed by CT scan. The severity of splenic injury was graded from I to V. The clinical outcome was obtained from medical records. RESULTS: We identified 32 adult patients (27 males and 5 females) with blunt splenic injuries who were managed non-operatively. In two patients it was not successful, and splenectomy was performed because of hemodynamic deterioration. The remaining 30 stable patients were divided into two groups: those who had only the initial ultrasound and CT scan with no follow-up studies (n = 8), and those who underwent repeat follow-up ultrasound or CT scan studies (n = 22). The severity of injury was similar in both groups in the second group follow-up studies showed normal spleens in 2 patients, improvement in 11, no change in 8, and deterioration in one. All patients in both groups were managed successfully with good clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: In the present series the follow-up radiological studies did not affect patient management. Follow-up imaging can be omitted in clinically stable patients with blunt splenic trauma grade I-III.
Authors: Federico Coccolini; Giulia Montori; Fausto Catena; Yoram Kluger; Walter Biffl; Ernest E Moore; Viktor Reva; Camilla Bing; Miklosh Bala; Paola Fugazzola; Hany Bahouth; Ingo Marzi; George Velmahos; Rao Ivatury; Kjetil Soreide; Tal Horer; Richard Ten Broek; Bruno M Pereira; Gustavo P Fraga; Kenji Inaba; Joseph Kashuk; Neil Parry; Peter T Masiakos; Konstantinos S Mylonas; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Simone Vasilij Benatti; Noel Naidoo; Francesco Salvetti; Stefano Maccatrozzo; Vanni Agnoletti; Emiliano Gamberini; Leonardo Solaini; Antonio Costanzo; Andrea Celotti; Matteo Tomasoni; Vladimir Khokha; Catherine Arvieux; Lena Napolitano; Lauri Handolin; Michele Pisano; Stefano Magnone; David A Spain; Marc de Moya; Kimberly A Davis; Nicola De Angelis; Ari Leppaniemi; Paula Ferrada; Rifat Latifi; David Costa Navarro; Yashuiro Otomo; Raul Coimbra; Ronald V Maier; Frederick Moore; Sandro Rizoli; Boris Sakakushev; Joseph M Galante; Osvaldo Chiara; Stefania Cimbanassi; Alain Chichom Mefire; Dieter Weber; Marco Ceresoli; Andrew B Peitzman; Liban Wehlie; Massimo Sartelli; Salomone Di Saverio; Luca Ansaloni Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 5.469