A A Keizer1, J H C Arkenbosch2, V Y Kong2, R Hoencamp1,2,3, J L Bruce4, M T D Smith4, D L Clarke4. 1. Department of Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3. Defence Healthcare Organization, Ministry of Defence, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The trend in liver trauma management has progressively become increasingly conservative. However, a vast majority of literature focuses heavily on the management of blunt trauma. This study reviews the management of hepatic trauma at a major trauma center in a developing world setting, in order to compare blunt and penetrating liver trauma and to define current management algorithms and protocols. METHODS: All patients who sustained liver trauma between 2012 to 2018 were identified in the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry and extracted for further analysis. RESULTS: A total of 808 patients with hepatic trauma were managed by our trauma center. There were 658 males and 150 females. The mean age was 30 years (standard deviation 13.3). A total of 68 patients died (8.2%) and a total of 290 (35%) patients required intensive care unit admission. The mean presenting shock index was 0.806 (standard deviation 0.67-1.0), the median Injury Severity Score was 18 (interquartile range 10-25) and the mean Revised Trauma Score was 12 (standard deviation 11-12). There were 367 penetrating and 441 blunt liver injuries. The age distribution was similar in both groups. There were significantly less females in the penetrating group. The shock index and the Injury Severity Score on presentation were significantly worse in the blunt group, respectively: 0.891 (standard deviation 0.31) versus 0.845 (standard deviation 0.69) (p < 0.001) and score 21 (interquartile range 13-27) versus 16 (interquartile range 9-20) (p < 0.01). The opposite applied to the Revised Trauma Score of 11.75 (standard deviation 0.74) versus 11.19 (standard deviation 1.3) (p < 0.001). There were significantly more associated intra-abdominal injuries in the penetrating group than the blunt group, in particular that of hollow organs, and 84% of patients with a penetrating injury underwent a laparotomy while only 33% of the blunt injuries underwent a laparotomy. The mortality rate was comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: Hepatic trauma is still associated with a high morbidity rate, although there have been dramatic improvements in mortality rates over the last three decades. The mortality rates for blunt and penetrating liver trauma are now similar. Non-operative management is feasible for over two-thirds of blunt injuries and for just under 20% of penetrating injuries.
BACKGROUND: The trend in liver trauma management has progressively become increasingly conservative. However, a vast majority of literature focuses heavily on the management of blunt trauma. This study reviews the management of hepatic trauma at a major trauma center in a developing world setting, in order to compare blunt and penetrating liver trauma and to define current management algorithms and protocols. METHODS: All patients who sustained liver trauma between 2012 to 2018 were identified in the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry and extracted for further analysis. RESULTS: A total of 808 patients with hepatic trauma were managed by our trauma center. There were 658 males and 150 females. The mean age was 30 years (standard deviation 13.3). A total of 68 patients died (8.2%) and a total of 290 (35%) patients required intensive care unit admission. The mean presenting shock index was 0.806 (standard deviation 0.67-1.0), the median Injury Severity Score was 18 (interquartile range 10-25) and the mean Revised Trauma Score was 12 (standard deviation 11-12). There were 367 penetrating and 441 blunt liver injuries. The age distribution was similar in both groups. There were significantly less females in the penetrating group. The shock index and the Injury Severity Score on presentation were significantly worse in the blunt group, respectively: 0.891 (standard deviation 0.31) versus 0.845 (standard deviation 0.69) (p < 0.001) and score 21 (interquartile range 13-27) versus 16 (interquartile range 9-20) (p < 0.01). The opposite applied to the Revised Trauma Score of 11.75 (standard deviation 0.74) versus 11.19 (standard deviation 1.3) (p < 0.001). There were significantly more associated intra-abdominal injuries in the penetrating group than the blunt group, in particular that of hollow organs, and 84% of patients with a penetrating injury underwent a laparotomy while only 33% of the blunt injuries underwent a laparotomy. The mortality rate was comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: Hepatic trauma is still associated with a high morbidity rate, although there have been dramatic improvements in mortality rates over the last three decades. The mortality rates for blunt and penetrating liver trauma are now similar. Non-operative management is feasible for over two-thirds of blunt injuries and for just under 20% of penetrating injuries.