AIM: To identify patients with splenic injuries, who should benefit from a conservative treatment, and to compare inhospital follow-up and hospital length of stay (LOS), in patients treated by non-operative management (NOM) versus immediate-splenectomy (IS). MATERIAL OF STUDY: A retrospective cohort study on consecutive patients, with all grade of splenic injuries, admitted between November 2010 and December 2014 at the Acute Care Surgery Service of the S. Anna University Hospital of Ferrara. Patients were offered NOM or IS. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled; 29 (53.7%) underwent IS and 25 (46.3%) were offered NOM. Splenic artery angioembolization was performed in 9 patients (36%) among this latter group. High-grade splenic injuries (IVV) were more represented in IS group (65.5% vs 8%), while low grade (I-II) were more represented in NOM group (64% vs 10.3%). Failure of NOM occurred in 4 patients (16%). Hospital LOS was longer in IS group (p=0.044), while in-hospital and 30-day mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamically stable patients, with grade I to III of splenic injuries, without other severe abdominal organ injuries, could benefit from a NOM; the in-hospital follow-up should be done, after a control CECT scan, with US. Observation and strictly monitoring of splenic injuries treated with NOM do not affect patients' hospital los. KEY WORDS: Non-operative management, Splenic Rupture, Surgery.
AIM: To identify patients with splenic injuries, who should benefit from a conservative treatment, and to compare inhospital follow-up and hospital length of stay (LOS), in patients treated by non-operative management (NOM) versus immediate-splenectomy (IS). MATERIAL OF STUDY: A retrospective cohort study on consecutive patients, with all grade of splenic injuries, admitted between November 2010 and December 2014 at the Acute Care Surgery Service of the S. Anna University Hospital of Ferrara. Patients were offered NOM or IS. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled; 29 (53.7%) underwent IS and 25 (46.3%) were offered NOM. Splenic artery angioembolization was performed in 9 patients (36%) among this latter group. High-grade splenic injuries (IVV) were more represented in IS group (65.5% vs 8%), while low grade (I-II) were more represented in NOM group (64% vs 10.3%). Failure of NOM occurred in 4 patients (16%). Hospital LOS was longer in IS group (p=0.044), while in-hospital and 30-day mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamically stable patients, with grade I to III of splenic injuries, without other severe abdominal organ injuries, could benefit from a NOM; the in-hospital follow-up should be done, after a control CECT scan, with US. Observation and strictly monitoring of splenic injuries treated with NOM do not affect patients' hospital los. KEY WORDS: Non-operative management, Splenic Rupture, Surgery.