Sabrina Gill1, John Hoff1, Ashley Mila1, Carol Sanchez1, Mark McKenney1,2, Adel Elkbuli3. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, 11750 Bird Road, Miami, FL, 33175, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Kendall Regional Medical Center, 11750 Bird Road, Miami, FL, 33175, USA. adel.elkbuli@hcahealthcare.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Splenectomies are widely performed, but there exists controversy regarding care for splenic injury patients. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature over the last 20 years for operative management (OM) versus nonoperative management (NOM) versus splenic artery embolization (SAE) for traumatic splenic injuries and associated outcomes. METHODS: A review of literature was performed following the PRISMA guidelines through a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, JAMA Network, and SAGE journals from 2000 to 2020 regarding splenic injury in trauma patients and their management. Articles were then selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria with GRADE criteria used on the included articles to assess quality. RESULTS: Twenty retrospective cohorts and one prospective cohort assessed patients who received OM versus NOM or SAE. Multiple studies indicated that NOM, in properly selected patients, provided better outcomes than its operative counterpart. CONCLUSION: This review provides additional evidence to support the NOM of splenic injuries for hemodynamically stable patients with benign abdomens as it accounts for consistently shorter hospital length of stay, fewer complications, and lower mortality than OM. For hemodynamically unstable patients, management continues to be intervention with surgery. More studies are needed to further investigate outcomes of post-splenectomy patients based on grade of injury, hemodynamic status, type of procedure (i.e., SAE), and failure of NOM in order to provide additional evidence and improve outcomes for this patient population.
BACKGROUND: Splenectomies are widely performed, but there exists controversy regarding care for splenic injurypatients. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature over the last 20 years for operative management (OM) versus nonoperative management (NOM) versus splenic artery embolization (SAE) for traumatic splenic injuries and associated outcomes. METHODS: A review of literature was performed following the PRISMA guidelines through a search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, JAMA Network, and SAGE journals from 2000 to 2020 regarding splenic injury in traumapatients and their management. Articles were then selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria with GRADE criteria used on the included articles to assess quality. RESULTS: Twenty retrospective cohorts and one prospective cohort assessed patients who received OM versus NOM or SAE. Multiple studies indicated that NOM, in properly selected patients, provided better outcomes than its operative counterpart. CONCLUSION: This review provides additional evidence to support the NOM of splenic injuries for hemodynamically stable patients with benign abdomens as it accounts for consistently shorter hospital length of stay, fewer complications, and lower mortality than OM. For hemodynamically unstable patients, management continues to be intervention with surgery. More studies are needed to further investigate outcomes of post-splenectomy patients based on grade of injury, hemodynamic status, type of procedure (i.e., SAE), and failure of NOM in order to provide additional evidence and improve outcomes for this patient population.
Authors: John E Scarborough; Angela M Ingraham; Amy E Liepert; Hee Soo Jung; Ann P O'Rourke; Suresh K Agarwal Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: M Heuer; G Taeger; G M Kaiser; D Nast-Kolb; C A Kühne; S Ruchholtz; R Lefering; A Paul; S Lendemans Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: Michel Teuben; Roy Spijkerman; Henrik Teuber; Roman Pfeifer; Hans-Christoph Pape; William Kramer; Luke Leenen Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2020-01-03