Nonoperative Treatment of Blunt Splenic Injury

A spleen-preserving program was implemented at the author's institution during the mid-1980s using a five-part injury-grading scale that is similar and comparable to the AAST classification. Since that time, all patients with splenic injuries admitted to the Department of Surgery at the Karl-Franzens University Hospital in Graz, a level I trauma center, have been prospectively evaluated with respect to splenic preservation. Analysis of the relation of the severity of organ injury to the use of nonoperative management showed that degree I or II injuries were treated nonoperatively, whereas degree III and IV injuries were usually treated with adhesives, partial resection, or mesh splenorrhaphy; only degree V injuries almost always required splenectomy. With increasing experience in nonoperative management of splenic injuries the initial criteria have become less rigid, and there is now a tendency to attempt it in patients who formerly would have undergone surgery.     

Long-Term Follow-Up After Non-operative Management of Blunt Splenic and Liver Injuries: A Questionnaire-Based Survey

Background

Non-operative management (NOM) of blunt splenic or liver injuries (solid organ injury, SOI) has become the standard of care in hemodynamically stable patients. However, the incidence of long-term symptoms in these patients is currently not known. The aim of this study was to assess long-term symptoms in patients undergoing successful NOM (sNOM) for SOI.

Methods

Long-term posttraumatic outcomes including chronic abdominal pain, irregular bowel movements, and recurrent infections were assessed using a specifically designed questionnaire and analyzed by univariable analysis.

Results

Eighty out of 138 (58%) patients with SOI undergoing sNOM) responded to the questionnaire. Median (IQR) follow-up time was 48.8 (28) months. Twenty-seven (34%) patients complained of at least one of the following symptoms: 17 (53%) chronic abdominal pain, 13 (41%) irregular bowel movements, and 8 (25%) recurrent infections. One female patient reported secondary infertility. No significant association between the above-mentioned symptoms and the Injury Severity Score, amount of hemoperitoneum, or high-grade SOI was found. Patients with chronic pain were significantly younger than asymptomatic patients (32.1 ± 14.5 vs. 48.3 ± 19.4 years, p = 0.002). Irregular bowel movements were significantly more frequent in patients with severe pelvic fractures (15.4 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.025). A trend toward a higher frequency of recurrent infections was found in patients with splenic injuries (15.9 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.067).

Conclusion

A third of patients with blunt SOI undergoing sNOM reported long-term abdominal symptoms. Younger age was associated with chronic abdominal symptoms. More studies are warranted to investigate long-term outcomes immunologic sequelae in patients after sNOM for SOI.

     

Current Status of Nonoperative Management of Liver Injuries

The successful use of nonoperative management of liver injuries requires a hemodynamically stable patient and early access to computed tomography (CT). Extensive intraperitoneal blood and extravasation of contrast on CT predict potential clinical failures. The CT appearance of the liver injury has poor correlation with clinical outcome. Angiographic embolization complements nonoperative management in the stable patient with an ongoing blood requirement. The follow-up CT scan is not required provided the hematocrit and the patient's clinical status remain stable. Common errors in nonoperative management include attributing evidence of blood loss to nonhepatic sources and continuing transfusions in anticipation that the bleeding will stop without intervention.     

Updated APSA Guidelines for the Management of Blunt Liver and Spleen Injuries

BackgroundNon-operative management of blunt liver and spleen injuries was championed initially in children with the first management guideline published in 2000 by the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA). Multiple articles have expanded on the original guidelines and additional therapy has been investigated to improve care for these patients. Based on a literature review and current consensus, the management guidelines for the treatment of blunt liver and spleen injuries are presented.MethodsA recent literature review by the APSA Outcomes committee [2] was utilized as the basis for the guideline recommendations. A task force was assembled from the APSA Committee on Trauma to review the original guidelines, the literature reported by the Outcomes Committee and then to develop an easy to implement guideline.ResultsThe updated guidelines for the management of blunt liver and spleen injuries are divided into 4 sections: Admission, Procedures, Set Free and Aftercare. Admission to the intensive care unit is based on abnormal vital signs after resuscitation with stable patients admitted to the ward with minimal restrictions. Procedure recommendations include transfusions for low hemoglobin (<7 mg/dL) or signs of ongoing bleeding. Angioembolization and operative exploration is limited to those patients with clinical signs of continued bleeding after resuscitation. Discharge is based on clinical condition and not grade of injury. Activity restrictions remain the same while follow-up imaging is only indicated for symptomatic patients.ConclusionThe updated APSA guidelines for the management of blunt liver and spleen injuries present an easy-to-follow management strategy for children.Level of EvidenceLevel 5.     

Nonoperative Management of Pancreato-Duodenal Injuries

Abstract Following injuries to the pancreas and duodenum (PDI) patients often present in extremis and undergo immediate laparotomy for hemodynamic instability and peritoneal signs. Nonoperative management (NOM) may be offered in selected patients with lowgrade injuries. Precise mapping of the injury, most commonly by computed tomography, is a prerequisite for NOM because clinical symptomatology can be variable and misleading. Additionally, delaying the treatment of PDI that should be corrected surgically may lead to significant complications. Therefore, NOM of PDI presents unique challenges, and the decision-making is not as straightforward as it is with NOM of other solid abdominal organs. Essentially, only duodenal hematomas without fullthickness wall perforation (Grade I and selected II) and pancreatic trauma without major duct involvement (Grade I and selected II) could be offered NOM. In these cases, the reported success rates vary from 74 to 95%. There are also a few severe pancreatic injuries that can be managed by stents with adequate reconstitution of the major pancreatic duct integrity and resolution of symptoms and without the need for operative management. Intensive monitoring and follow-up by clinical examination and repeat CT imaging is essential in these patients, as the risk of complications, and particularly a pseudocyst is high.     

Nonoperative Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: Feasibility and Outcomes

Introduction

Preventing secondary insult to the brain is imperative following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Although TBI does not preclude nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic injuries, development of hypotension in this setting may be detrimental and could therefore lead trauma surgeons to a lower threshold for operative intervention and a potentially higher risk of failure of NOM (FNOM). We hypothesized that the presence of a TBI in patients with blunt splenic injury would lead to a higher risk of FNOM.

Methods

Patients with blunt splenic injury were selected from the National Trauma Data Bank research datasets from 2007 to 2011. TBI was defined as AIS head ≥ 3 and FNOM as patients who underwent a spleen-related operation after 2 h from admission. TBI patients were compared to those without head injury. The primary outcome was FNOM.

Results

Of 47,713 patients identified, 41,436 (86.8%) underwent a trial of NOM. FNOM was identical (10.6 vs. 10.8%, p = 0.601) among patients with and without TBI. TBI patients had lower adjusted odds for FNOM (AOR 0.66, p < 0.001), even among those with a high-grade splenic injury (AOR 0.68, p < 0.001). No difference in adjusted mortality was noted when comparing TBI patients with and without FNOM (AOR 1.01, p = 0.95).

Conclusions

NOM of blunt splenic trauma in TBI patients has higher adjusted odds for success. This could be related to interventions targeting prevention of secondary brain injury. Further studies are required to identify those specific practices that lead to a higher success rate of NOM of splenic trauma in TBI patients.

     

Early Surgery in Prone Position for Associated Injuries in Patients Undergoing Non-operative Management for Splenic and Liver Injuries

Background

In patients undergoing non-operative management (NOM) of blunt splenic and/or liver injuries, no data exist on the safety of same-admission surgery in prone position for concomitant injuries.

Methods

Retrospective study including adult trauma patients with blunt splenic/liver injuries and attempted NOM from 01/2009 to 06/2015 was conducted. Patient and injury characteristics as well as outcomes [failed (f)NOM, mortality] of patients with/without surgery in prone position were compared (‘prone’ vs. ‘non-prone’ group).

Results

A total of 244 patients with blunt splenic/liver injury and attempted NOM were included. Forty patients (16.4%) underwent surgery in prone position on median post-injury day 2.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.0]. Surgery in prone position was mostly performed for associated spinal or pelvic injuries. The ISS was significantly higher, and the proportion of patients with high-grade injuries (OIS?≥?3) was significantly less frequent in the ‘prone? group (30.0?±?14.5 vs. 23.9?±?13.2, p?=?0.009 and 27.5 vs. 53.9%, p?=?0.002). In-hospital mortality as well as NOM failure rates were not significantly different between the ‘prone’ and ‘non-prone? group (2.5 vs. 2.9%, p?=?1.000; 0.0 vs. 4.4%, p?=?0.362). Eleven patients with high-grade injuries were operated in prone position at median day 3 (IQR 3.0). None of these patients failed NOM. However, one patient with a grade IV splenic injury required immediate splenectomy after being operated in right-sided position on the day of admission.

Conclusion

In this single-center analysis, surgery in prone position was performed in a substantial number of patients with splenic/liver injuries without increasing the fNOM rate. However, caution should be used in patients with grade IV/V splenic injuries.

     

Extension of Nonoperative Management of Blunt Pancreatic Trauma to Include Grade III Injuries: A Safety Analysis

Background  In hemodynamically stable patients after blunt pancreatic trauma, the main pancreatic duct (MPD) disruption (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma [AAST] grade III-IV-V lesions) is usually treated surgically or by endoscopic stent placement, whereas injuries without duct involvement (grade I-II) are liable to medical treatment. To date, no evidence has been reported regarding nonoperative management (NoM) of grade III injuries. We aimed to evaluate the safety of extending medical management to include cases of distal MPD involvement (grade III). Patients and methods  Data were collected on patients admitted after blunt pancreatic trauma between January 1999 and December 2007. Patients exhibiting hemodynamic instability or hollow organ perforations were excluded from this study, as they were surgically managed. In all remaining cases NoM was attempted. Antibiotic prophylaxis and early total enteral nutrition were routinely adopted. Grade III patients received octreotide during hospitalization and for 6 months after discharge. Results  Eleven patients (2 with grade I injury, 3 with grade II injury, and 6 with grade III injury, all diagnosed by contrast-enhanced helical CT) were included. Nonsurgical management was carried out in all of these patients. Among grade III patients, one developed a peripancreatic abscess; another, a pancreatic fistula. Both were successfully treated nonoperatively. The average length of hospital stay was similar in grade I-II and grade III patients. After a median follow-up of 57 months no mortality or pancreatic sequelae had occurred. Conclusions  Under the aforementioned conditions, an attempt to extend NoM to include patients with AAST-grade III lesions can be justified. However, such a strategy demands continuous patient monitoring, because should the case worsen, surgery might become necessary.     

Nonoperative Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma: Also Feasible and Safe in Centers with Low Trauma Incidence and in the Presence of Established Risk Factors

Abstract Background:   Treatment of blunt splenic trauma has undergone dramatic changes over the last few decades. Nonoperative management (NOM) is now the preferred treatment of choice, when possible. The outcome of NOM has been evaluated. This study evaluates the results following the management of blunt splenic injury in adults in a Swedish university hospital with a low blunt abdominal trauma incidence. Method:   Fifty patients with blunt splenic trauma were treated at the Department of Surgery, Lund University Hospital from January 1994 to December 2003. One patient was excluded due to a diagnostic delay of > 24 h. Charts were reviewed retrospectively to examine demographics, injury severity score (ISS), splenic injury grade, diagnostics, treatment and outcome measures. Results:   Thirty-nine patients (80%) were initially treated nonoperatively (NOM), and ten (20%) patients underwent immediate surgery (operative management, OM). Only one (3%) patient failed NOM and required surgery nine days after admission (failure of NOM, FNOM). The patients in the OM group had higher ISS (p < 0.001), higher grade of splenic injury (p < 0.001), and were hemodynamically unstable to a greater extent (p < 0.001). This was accompanied by increased transfusion requirements (p < 0.001), longer stay in the ICU unit (p < 0.001) and higher costs (p = 0.001). Twenty-seven patients were successfully treated without surgery. No serious complication was found on routine radiological follow-up. Conclusion:   Most patients in this study were managed conservatively with a low failure rate of NOM. NOM of blunt splenic trauma could thus be performed in a seemingly safe and effective manner, even in the presence of established risk factors. Routine follow-up with CT scan did not appear to add clinically relevant information affecting patient management.     

腹部实质脏器损伤非手术治疗的进展

腹部实质脏器损伤的经典治疗原则是剖腹探查 ,及时的手术探查救治了不少腹部实质脏器损伤患者的生命 ,但也有不少本不需手术的患者遭受了剖腹手术的痛苦。随着基础和临床研究的进展 ,非手术治疗腹部实质脏器损伤已广泛用于临床 ,甚至超过了手术治疗。1　肝脾损伤的非手术治疗1 .1　历史回顾全脾切除术治疗脾损伤已有近 2 0 0年的历史 ,而且效果较好 ,使脾损伤的死亡率由 90 %～ 1 0 0 %降低到 5 %左右。 1 952年Ｋｉｎｇ等首次报道了儿童脾切除术后发生爆发性感染 ,引起普遍的关注。随着脾脏功能的深入研究 ,人们认识到脾脏虽非生命必需器官…     

Selective Nonoperative Management of Kidney Gunshot Injuries

Background  Nonoperative management (NOM) of kidney gunshot injuries as an alternative to surgical exploration is rarely reported. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of selective NOM of such injuries. Methods  A 4-year prospective study was conducted that included all patients admitted to a Level I trauma center with kidney gunshot injuries. Patients with abdominal gunshot wounds and hematuria with no indications for immediate laparotomy (peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, head or spinal cord injury) underwent intravenous contrast abdominal computed tomography. Patients with confirmed kidney injuries were observed with serial clinical examinations. Outcome parameters included the need for delayed laparotomy, complications, length of hospital stay, and survival. Results  During the study period, 33 patients with kidney gunshot injuries were selected for NOM without laparotomy. The mean Injury Severity Score was 10.5 (range 4–25). Simple kidney injuries (grades I, II) occurred in 15 (45.5%) patients and complex kidney injuries (grades III, IV) in 18 (54.5%) patients. Associated injuries included 14 of the liver (42.4%), 4 (12.1%) of the spleen, and 6 (18.2%) each of the diaphragm, lung (contusion), and hemothorax. Three patients required delayed laparotomy: two for nonrenal indications, and one patient had a delayed nephrectomy for a grade IV injury. The overall successful NOM rate was 90.9%. The mean hospital stay was 5.9 days (range 2–23 days). There were no kidney-related complications and no mortality. Conclusion  Selective NOM of patients with kidney gunshot injuries is a feasible, safe, effective alternative to routine exploration.     

Pediatric Splenic Injury: Nonoperative Management First!

Abstract Background and Purpose:  In the past splenectomy was the standard procedure for traumatic blunt splenic injury, when bleeding of the spleen occurred. Since the spleen performs important immunological functions the advantage of a spleen-saving approach is preservation of immunological functions. Especially in the pediatric population splenic preservation is an important objective. Spleen-saving treatment, in particular selective nonoperative management, has gained ground in the past 20 years. An 18-year retrospective review was performed to evaluate our cumulative experience with nonoperative management. Endpoints: hemodynamical instability and splenectomy. Methods:  Forty-six patients were identified. Demographics, methods of management, mechanism of injury, injury grade, associated injuries, hemodynamical parameters, bloodtransfusion, complications, ICU and hospital stay were documented and analyzed to determine statistical significance between modes of management. Results:  Initially, 34 patients were managed nonoperatively, while 12 patients underwent laparotomy – with 7 (58.3% of the operative group) of these having splenectomy performed. Three patients (out of 34) failed nonoperative management and required delayed splenorraphy or splenectomy, a 91.2% (3 out of 34 failed) success rate for intended nonoperative management versus 85.7% for intended splenorraphy (1 out of 7 failed). Thus, overall rates of 67.4% nonoperative management and 82.6% splenic conservation were achieved. Analysis of parameters between treatments showed significant differences between nonoperative management and splenorraphy for splenic injury grade II and IV. Conclusion:  We recommend based on our data on children with splenic injury grades II and IV that the standard treatment for children aged 0 to 18 years due to blunt abdominal trauma should be nonoperative management. However management of blunt splenic injury remains a clinical decision, for this reason does not preclude on CT-scan grade V for nonoperative management.     

Colonoscopic Splenic Injuries: Incidence and Management

Purpose  

Splenic injuries that occur during colonoscopies are rare. There is no available incidence of this serious complication, and the literature is limited to case reports. Our study looks at single institution experience of splenic injuries during colonoscopy to define the incidence and management of this serious complication.     

Nonoperative Management of Tracheobronchial Injuries in Severely Injured Patients

Purpose A rupture of the airway due to blunt chest trauma is rare, and treatment can prove challenging. Many surgeons suggest operative management for these kinds of injuries. Nonoperative therapy is reported only in exceptional cases. But there is still a lack of evidence from which to recommend surgical repair of these injuries as the first choice procedure.Methods We retrospectively analyzed the records of 92 multiple injured patients admitted to our trauma department between July 2002 and July 2003 for the incidence and management of tracheobronchial rupture (TBR).Results Five (5.4%) of 92 patients suffered from tracheobronchial injuries. The mean injury severity score was 38. There were three male and two female patients, with a mean age of 23 years. All patients had lesions <2 cm in size and were treated nonoperatively. One patient died from multiorgan failure, but the others recovered from TBR uneventfully. One patient developed acute pneumonia as a result of respirator therapy, but none of the patients had mediastinitis or tracheal stenosis within 3 months after injury.Conclusion We believe that surgical treatment is not mandatory in patients with small to moderate ruptures, and such aggressive treatment may even have adverse effects, especially in patients with multiple injuries.