L Chastang1, T Bège2, M Prudhomme3, A C Simonnet4, A Herrero5, F Guillon5, D Bono6, E Nini7, T Buisson8, G Carbonnel9, L Passebois10, C Vacher11, M-C Le Moine3. 1. Service de chirurgie digestive et cancérologie, centre hospitalier Carémeau, place du Pr-Robert Debré, 30000 Nîmes, France. Electronic address: ludovic.chastang@chu-nimes.fr. 2. Service de chirurgie digestive, Hôpital nord, AP-HM, chemin des Bourrely, 13015 Marseille, France. 3. Service de chirurgie digestive et cancérologie, centre hospitalier Carémeau, place du Pr-Robert Debré, 30000 Nîmes, France. 4. BESPIM, centre hospitalier Carémeau, place du Pr-Robert-Debré, 30000 Nîmes cedex 9, France. 5. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier Saint-Éloi, 80, avenue Augustin-Fliche, 34000 Montpellier, France. 6. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier Joffre, 20, avenue du Languedoc, 66000 Perpignan, France. 7. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier Antoine-Gayraud, route de Saint-Hilaire, 11000 Carcassonne, France. 8. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier, boulevard Docteur-Lacroix, 11100 Narbonne, France. 9. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier, avenue du 8-Mai-1945, 48000 Mende, France. 10. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier, 2, rue Valentin-Haûy, 34525 Béziers, France. 11. Service de chirurgie digestive, centre hospitalier du Bassin de Thau, boulevard Camille Blanc, 34200 Sète, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The management of the severe blunt splenic injuries remains debated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality of splenic injury according to severity and management (surgery, embolization, non-operative management [NOM]). METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was conducted including patients aged 16 years and older with diagnosed splenic injury. We evaluated severity according to the AAST classification, the presence of hemoperitoneum or a contrast blush on initial CT scan. The initial hemodynamic status, patients co-morbidities, the ISS (injury severity score), management and morbidity were also noted. RESULTS: Between May 2010 and May 2012, 91 patients were included. Thirty-seven patients (41%) had mild splenic injury (AAST I or II and a small hemoperitoneum) while 54 patients (59%) had severe splenic injury (AAST III or greater). The management included 18 splenectomies (20%), 15 embolizations (16%). Among 67 patients undergoing NOM without initial embolization, five (7%) developed secondary bleeding, five required surgery and nine underwent secondary embolization. No patient died and morbidity was 44% (n=40), 13% for mild injuries vs. 65% for severe injuries (P<0.01). For severe injuries, total morbidity was 58% after NOM, 73% after embolization and 70% after surgery. Specific morbidity related to the management was 10% after NOM vs. 47% after embolization (P=0.02). Specific morbidity after surgery was 15%. CONCLUSION: Embolization, because of its important specific morbidity, should not be performed as a prophylactic measure, but only in presence of clinical or laboratory signs of bleeding.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The management of the severe blunt splenic injuries remains debated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality of splenic injury according to severity and management (surgery, embolization, non-operative management [NOM]). METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was conducted including patients aged 16 years and older with diagnosed splenic injury. We evaluated severity according to the AAST classification, the presence of hemoperitoneum or a contrast blush on initial CT scan. The initial hemodynamic status, patients co-morbidities, the ISS (injury severity score), management and morbidity were also noted. RESULTS: Between May 2010 and May 2012, 91 patients were included. Thirty-seven patients (41%) had mild splenic injury (AAST I or II and a small hemoperitoneum) while 54 patients (59%) had severe splenic injury (AAST III or greater). The management included 18 splenectomies (20%), 15 embolizations (16%). Among 67 patients undergoing NOM without initial embolization, five (7%) developed secondary bleeding, five required surgery and nine underwent secondary embolization. No patient died and morbidity was 44% (n=40), 13% for mild injuries vs. 65% for severe injuries (P<0.01). For severe injuries, total morbidity was 58% after NOM, 73% after embolization and 70% after surgery. Specific morbidity related to the management was 10% after NOM vs. 47% after embolization (P=0.02). Specific morbidity after surgery was 15%. CONCLUSION: Embolization, because of its important specific morbidity, should not be performed as a prophylactic measure, but only in presence of clinical or laboratory signs of bleeding.
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