Regan J Berg1, Kenji Inaba2, Obi Okoye1, Jason Pasley1, Pedro G Teixeira1, Michael Esparza1, Demetrios Demetriades1. 1. Los Angeles County Medical Center-University of Southern California, Division of Trauma Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, LAC+USC Medical Center, 2051 Marengo Street Inpatient Tower (C)-Room C5L100, Los Angeles, CA, United States. 2. Los Angeles County Medical Center-University of Southern California, Division of Trauma Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, LAC+USC Medical Center, 2051 Marengo Street Inpatient Tower (C)-Room C5L100, Los Angeles, CA, United States. Electronic address: kinaba@surgery.usc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Selective non-operative management (NOM) is standard of care for clinically stable patients with blunt splenic trauma and expectant management approaches are increasingly utilised in penetrating abdominal trauma, including in the setting of solid organ injury. Despite this evolution of clinical practice, little is known about the safety and efficacy of NOM in penetrating splenic injury. METHODS: Trauma registry and medical record review identified all consecutive patients presenting to LAC+USC Medical Center with penetrating splenic injury between January 2001 and December 2011. Associated injuries, incidence and nature of operative intervention, local and systemic complications and mortality were determined. RESULTS: During the study period, 225 patients experienced penetrating splenic trauma. The majority (187/225, 83%) underwent emergent laparotomy. Thirty-eight clinically stable patients underwent a deliberate trial of NOM and 24/38 (63%) were ultimately managed without laparotomy. Amongst patients failing NOM, 3/14 (21%) underwent splenectomy while an additional 6/14 (42%) had splenorrhaphy. Hollow viscus injury (HVI) occurred in 21% of all patients failing NOM. Forty percent of all NOM patients had diaphragmatic injury (DI). All patients undergoing delayed laparotomy for HVI or a splenic procedure presented symptomatically within 24h of the initial injury. No deaths occurred in patients undergoing NOM. CONCLUSIONS: Although the vast majority of penetrating splenic trauma requires urgent operative management, a group of patients does present without haemodynamic instability, peritonitis or radiologic evidence of hollow viscus injury. Management of these patients is complicated as over half may remain clinically stable and can avoid laparotomy, making them potential candidates for a trial of NOM. HVI is responsible for NOM failure in up to a fifth of these cases and typically presents within 24h of injury. Delayed laparotomy, within this limited time period, did not appear to increase mortality nor preclude successful splenic salvage. In clinically stable patients, diagnostic laparoscopy remains essential to evaluate and repair occult DI. As NOM for penetrating abdominal trauma becomes more common, multi-centre data is needed to more accurately define the principles of patient selection and the limitations and consequences of this approach in the setting of splenic injury.
INTRODUCTION: Selective non-operative management (NOM) is standard of care for clinically stable patients with blunt splenic trauma and expectant management approaches are increasingly utilised in penetrating abdominal trauma, including in the setting of solid organ injury. Despite this evolution of clinical practice, little is known about the safety and efficacy of NOM in penetrating splenic injury. METHODS:Trauma registry and medical record review identified all consecutive patients presenting to LAC+USC Medical Center with penetrating splenic injury between January 2001 and December 2011. Associated injuries, incidence and nature of operative intervention, local and systemic complications and mortality were determined. RESULTS: During the study period, 225 patients experienced penetrating splenic trauma. The majority (187/225, 83%) underwent emergent laparotomy. Thirty-eight clinically stable patients underwent a deliberate trial of NOM and 24/38 (63%) were ultimately managed without laparotomy. Amongst patients failing NOM, 3/14 (21%) underwent splenectomy while an additional 6/14 (42%) had splenorrhaphy. Hollow viscus injury (HVI) occurred in 21% of all patients failing NOM. Forty percent of all NOM patients had diaphragmatic injury (DI). All patients undergoing delayed laparotomy for HVI or a splenic procedure presented symptomatically within 24h of the initial injury. No deaths occurred in patients undergoing NOM. CONCLUSIONS: Although the vast majority of penetrating splenic trauma requires urgent operative management, a group of patients does present without haemodynamic instability, peritonitis or radiologic evidence of hollow viscus injury. Management of these patients is complicated as over half may remain clinically stable and can avoid laparotomy, making them potential candidates for a trial of NOM. HVI is responsible for NOM failure in up to a fifth of these cases and typically presents within 24h of injury. Delayed laparotomy, within this limited time period, did not appear to increase mortality nor preclude successful splenic salvage. In clinically stable patients, diagnostic laparoscopy remains essential to evaluate and repair occult DI. As NOM for penetrating abdominal trauma becomes more common, multi-centre data is needed to more accurately define the principles of patient selection and the limitations and consequences of this approach in the setting of splenic injury.
Authors: David Dreizin; Yuyin Zhou; Shuhao Fu; Yan Wang; Guang Li; Kathryn Champ; Eliot Siegel; Ze Wang; Tina Chen; Alan L Yuille Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-11-11
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: Carlos Serna; José Julián Serna; Yaset Caicedo; Natalia Padilla; Linda M Gallego; Alexander Salcedo; Fernando Rodríguez-Holguín; Adolfo González-Hadad; Alberto García; Mario Alain Herrera; Michael W Parra; Carlos A Ordoñez Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Roy Spijkerman; Michel Paul Johan Teuben; Fatima Hoosain; Liezel Phyllis Taylor; Timothy Craig Hardcastle; Taco Johan Blokhuis; Brian Leigh Warren; Luke Petrus Hendrikus Leenen Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 5.469