James Charles Ian Crichton1, Kamil Naidoo, Barbaros Yet, Susan I Brundage, Zane Perkins. 1. From the Department of General Surgery (J.C.I.C.), Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand; Queen Mary University of London, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom (K.N., B.Y., Z.P., S.I.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management (NOM) of hemodynamically normal patients with blunt splenic injury (BSI) is the standard of care. Guidelines recommend additional splenic angioembolization (SAE) in patients with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Grade IV and Grade V BSI, but the role of SAE in Grade III injuries is unclear and controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the safety and effectiveness of SAE as an adjunct to NOM versus NOM alone in adults with BSI. METHODS: A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies that compared outcomes in adult BSI patients treated with SAE or NOM alone. Primary outcome was failure of NOM. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, and transfusion requirements. Bayesian meta-analyses were used to calculate an absolute (risk difference) and relative (risk ratio [RR]) measure of treatment effect for each outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (6,684 patients) were included. For Grades I to V combined, there was no difference in NOM failure rate (SAE, 8.6% vs NOM, 7.7%; RR, 1.09 [0.80-1.51]; p = 0.28), mortality (SAE, 4.8% vs NOM, 5.8%; RR, 0.82 [0.45-1.31]; p = 0.81), hospital length of stay (11.3 vs 9.5 days; p = 0.06), or blood transfusion requirements (1.8 vs 1.7 units; p = 0.47) between patients treated with SAE and those treated with NOM alone. However, morbidity was significantly higher in patients treated with SAE (SAE, 38.1% vs NOM, 18.6%; RR, 1.83 [1.20-2.66]; p < 0.01). When stratified by grade of splenic injury, SAE significantly reduced the failure rate of NOM in patients with Grade IV and Grade V splenic injuries but had minimal effect in those with Grade I to Grade III injuries. CONCLUSION: Splenic angioembolization should be strongly considered as an adjunct to NOM in patients with AAST Grade IV and Grade V BSI but should not be routinely recommended in patients with AAST Grade I to Grade III injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management (NOM) of hemodynamically normal patients with blunt splenic injury (BSI) is the standard of care. Guidelines recommend additional splenic angioembolization (SAE) in patients with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Grade IV and Grade V BSI, but the role of SAE in Grade III injuries is unclear and controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the safety and effectiveness of SAE as an adjunct to NOM versus NOM alone in adults with BSI. METHODS: A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) was performed to identify original studies that compared outcomes in adult BSI patients treated with SAE or NOM alone. Primary outcome was failure of NOM. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, and transfusion requirements. Bayesian meta-analyses were used to calculate an absolute (risk difference) and relative (risk ratio [RR]) measure of treatment effect for each outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (6,684 patients) were included. For Grades I to V combined, there was no difference in NOM failure rate (SAE, 8.6% vs NOM, 7.7%; RR, 1.09 [0.80-1.51]; p = 0.28), mortality (SAE, 4.8% vs NOM, 5.8%; RR, 0.82 [0.45-1.31]; p = 0.81), hospital length of stay (11.3 vs 9.5 days; p = 0.06), or blood transfusion requirements (1.8 vs 1.7 units; p = 0.47) between patients treated with SAE and those treated with NOM alone. However, morbidity was significantly higher in patients treated with SAE (SAE, 38.1% vs NOM, 18.6%; RR, 1.83 [1.20-2.66]; p < 0.01). When stratified by grade of splenic injury, SAE significantly reduced the failure rate of NOM in patients with Grade IV and Grade V splenic injuries but had minimal effect in those with Grade I to Grade III injuries. CONCLUSION: Splenic angioembolization should be strongly considered as an adjunct to NOM in patients with AAST Grade IV and Grade V BSI but should not be routinely recommended in patients with AAST Grade I to Grade III injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Authors: Mauro Podda; Belinda De Simone; Marco Ceresoli; Francesco Virdis; Francesco Favi; Johannes Wiik Larsen; Federico Coccolini; Massimo Sartelli; Nikolaos Pararas; Solomon Gurmu Beka; Luigi Bonavina; Raffaele Bova; Adolfo Pisanu; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Zsolt Balogh; Osvaldo Chiara; Imtiaz Wani; Philip Stahel; Salomone Di Saverio; Thomas Scalea; Kjetil Soreide; Boris Sakakushev; Francesco Amico; Costanza Martino; Andreas Hecker; Nicola de'Angelis; Mircea Chirica; Joseph Galante; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Emmanouil Pikoulis; Yoram Kluger; Denis Bensard; Luca Ansaloni; Gustavo Fraga; Ian Civil; Giovanni Domenico Tebala; Isidoro Di Carlo; Yunfeng Cui; Raul Coimbra; Vanni Agnoletti; Ibrahima Sall; Edward Tan; Edoardo Picetti; Andrey Litvin; Dimitrios Damaskos; Kenji Inaba; Jeffrey Leung; Ronald Maier; Walt Biffl; Ari Leppaniemi; Ernest Moore; Kurinchi Gurusamy; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 8.165