A Böyük1, M Gümüş2, A Önder2, M Kapan2, I Aliosmanoğlu2, F Taşkesen2, Z Arıkanoğlu2, E Gedik2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Yenişehir, 21280, Diyarbakır, Turkey. azboyuk@hotmail.com. 2. Department of General Surgery, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Yenişehir, 21280, Diyarbakır, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of non-operative management (NOM) in patients with splenic injuries and to determine the predictive factors of NOM failure. METHODS: Two hundred and six patients with splenic injury were admitted between January 2005 and April 2011. Of the 206 patients with splenic injury, 47 patients met the inclusion criteria of NOM. The mechanism of injury, grade of splenic injury, other intra- and extra-abdominal injuries, systolic blood pressure on admission, hemoglobin levels, number of transfusions, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and hospitalization period were recorded. The patients were divided into two groups: those with NOM and those in whom the failure of NOM led to laparotomy. The patients were monitored for vital signs, abdominal findings, and laboratory data. NOM was abandoned in cases of hemodynamic instability, ongoing bleeding, or development of peritonitis. Independent predictive factors of NOM failure were identified. The patients managed non-operatively were compared with the patients for whom NOM failed. RESULTS: NOM was successful in 40 of 47 patients. There were differences between the two groups for ISS, hemoglobin levels, need for blood transfusion, and the number of associated extra-abdominal injuries. The grade of splenic injury was determined to be an important and significant independent predictive factor for the success of NOM of splenic injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The grade of splenic injury is an important and significant independent predictor factor for the success of NOM. NOM is not recommended in patients with high-grade splenic injury.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of non-operative management (NOM) in patients with splenic injuries and to determine the predictive factors of NOM failure. METHODS: Two hundred and six patients with splenic injury were admitted between January 2005 and April 2011. Of the 206 patients with splenic injury, 47 patients met the inclusion criteria of NOM. The mechanism of injury, grade of splenic injury, other intra- and extra-abdominal injuries, systolic blood pressure on admission, hemoglobin levels, number of transfusions, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and hospitalization period were recorded. The patients were divided into two groups: those with NOM and those in whom the failure of NOM led to laparotomy. The patients were monitored for vital signs, abdominal findings, and laboratory data. NOM was abandoned in cases of hemodynamic instability, ongoing bleeding, or development of peritonitis. Independent predictive factors of NOM failure were identified. The patients managed non-operatively were compared with the patients for whom NOM failed. RESULTS: NOM was successful in 40 of 47 patients. There were differences between the two groups for ISS, hemoglobin levels, need for blood transfusion, and the number of associated extra-abdominal injuries. The grade of splenic injury was determined to be an important and significant independent predictive factor for the success of NOM of splenic injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The grade of splenic injury is an important and significant independent predictor factor for the success of NOM. NOM is not recommended in patients with high-grade splenic injury.
Authors: Ajai K Malhotra; Rifat Latifi; Timothy C Fabian; Rao R Ivatury; S Dhage; Tiffany K Bee; Preston R Miller; Martin A Croce; Jay A Yelon Journal: J Trauma Date: 2003-05
Authors: Brian G Harbrecht; Mazen S Zenati; Juan B Ochoa; Ricard N Townsend; Juan C Puyana; Mark A Wilson; Andrew B Peitzman Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 6.113