BACKGROUND: The management of patients with splenic injury has shifted from routine splenectomy to attempts at splenic salvage. Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS), we assessed the patterns of care for splenic trauma. We hypothesized that the processes of care in urban and rural hospitals would differ. METHODS: Generalized estimating equations were used to identify predictor variables associated with laparotomy and splenectomy from a national, population-based sample of inpatients (HCUP-NIS). Fourteen thousand nine hundred one patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification discharge diagnosis code of 865 were selected from the 1998 to 2000 HCUP-NIS data. Exclusion criteria included age greater than 80 years. Analyses were compared using all patients and excluding patients who died during the first 2 hospital days. RESULTS: Eight thousand five hundred fifty-three patients were treated in urban teaching hospitals. Forty percent underwent a laparotomy and 28% underwent a splenectomy at that time. Another 4,461 patients were cared for in urban nonteaching hospitals. Of these, 46% had a laparotomy and 35% underwent a splenectomy. The remaining 1,887 patients were seen in rural hospitals. Forty-six percent had a laparotomy and 36% had a splenectomy. Patients in urban teaching hospitals had lower risk-adjusted odds of splenectomy in multivariate models controlling for confounders including overall injury severity. Overall splenic salvage increased from 1998 to 2000, primarily because of increased salvage rates among urban teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: The management of patients with splenic injury differs among urban teaching, urban nonteaching, and rural hospitals. Surgeons at urban teaching hospitals appear more willing to attempt splenic salvage by means of nonoperative management.
BACKGROUND: The management of patients with splenic injury has shifted from routine splenectomy to attempts at splenic salvage. Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS), we assessed the patterns of care for splenic trauma. We hypothesized that the processes of care in urban and rural hospitals would differ. METHODS: Generalized estimating equations were used to identify predictor variables associated with laparotomy and splenectomy from a national, population-based sample of inpatients (HCUP-NIS). Fourteen thousand nine hundred one patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification discharge diagnosis code of 865 were selected from the 1998 to 2000 HCUP-NIS data. Exclusion criteria included age greater than 80 years. Analyses were compared using all patients and excluding patients who died during the first 2 hospital days. RESULTS: Eight thousand five hundred fifty-three patients were treated in urban teaching hospitals. Forty percent underwent a laparotomy and 28% underwent a splenectomy at that time. Another 4,461 patients were cared for in urban nonteaching hospitals. Of these, 46% had a laparotomy and 35% underwent a splenectomy. The remaining 1,887 patients were seen in rural hospitals. Forty-six percent had a laparotomy and 36% had a splenectomy. Patients in urban teaching hospitals had lower risk-adjusted odds of splenectomy in multivariate models controlling for confounders including overall injury severity. Overall splenic salvage increased from 1998 to 2000, primarily because of increased salvage rates among urban teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: The management of patients with splenic injury differs among urban teaching, urban nonteaching, and rural hospitals. Surgeons at urban teaching hospitals appear more willing to attempt splenic salvage by means of nonoperative management.
Authors: Vikas P Chaubey; Derek J Roberts; Mauricio B Ferri; Niklas H Bobrovitz; Henry T Stelfox Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 2.102
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
Authors: Constance McGraw; Charles W Mains; Jodie Taylor; Cecile D'Huyvetter; Kristin Salottolo; David Bar-Or Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2022-09-09
Authors: Chih-Yuan Fu; Francesco Bajani; Marissa Bokhari; Leah C Tatebe; Frederick Starr; Thomas Messer; Matthew Kaminsky; Andrew Dennis; Victoria Schlanser; Justin Mis; Rubinder Toor; Stathis Poulakidas; Faran Bokhari Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.352