Management of splenic trauma: a single institution’s 8-year experience

Abstract Background Management of splenic trauma has evolved, with current practice favoring selective angiographic embolization and non-operative treatment over immediate splenectomy. Defining the optimal selection criteria for the appropriate management strategy remains an important question. Meth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of surgery 2015-02, Vol.209 (2), p.308-314
Hauptverfasser: Rosati, Carl, M.D, Ata, Ashar, M.B.B.S., M.P.H, Siskin, Gary P., M.D, Megna, Domenic, M.D, Bonville, Daniel J., D.O, Stain, Steven C., M.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Management of splenic trauma has evolved, with current practice favoring selective angiographic embolization and non-operative treatment over immediate splenectomy. Defining the optimal selection criteria for the appropriate management strategy remains an important question. Methods This retrospective registry review was conducted at a Level I trauma center. The patient population consisted of 20,561 patients in the State Trauma Registry from April 2004 to May 2012. Splenectomy, angiography, splenic embolization, nonoperative, and noninterventional (NI) observation were the management strategies under study. Morbidity and mortality were the outcome measures. Morbidity and mortality by management strategy. Results During the 8-year study period, 926 (4.5%) patients sustained splenic injury. Observational management increased over time despite the similar distribution of splenic injury grade over the study period: grade I/II (50%), grade III (24.2%), and grade IV/V (25.8%). Mortality rates associated with each management strategy were the following: immediate splenectomy (IS; 25%), splenic embolization (SE; 3.9%), and angiography only or observation, that is, NI (6.5%) management. Injury severity score (ISS) was highest in IS (36.1 ± 1.3) compared with SE (29.1 ± 1.0, P = .001) and NI (21.6, P < .001). Splenectomy was required in 5 of the 129 (3.9%) patients managed with SE and 9 of the 677 (1.3%) patients managed by NI. Mortality was significantly lower among those managed by SE (odds ratio .12, 95% confidence interval: .05 to .32) or NI (odds ratio .21, 95% confidence interval: .12 to .35). This survival benefit was explained by the association of IS with systolic blood pressure
ISSN:0002-9610
1879-1883
DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.06.034