Dataset Information

Selective non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The treatment of abdominal solid organ injuries has shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). However, the feasibility of NOM for penetrating splenic trauma is unclear and outcome is believed to be worse than NOM for penetrating liver and kidney injuries. Hence, the aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility of selective NOM in penetrating splenic injury. METHODS:A review of literature was performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on adult patients treated by NOM for splenic injuries were included and outcome was documented and compared. RESULTS:Five articles from exclusively level-1 and level-2-traumacenters were selected and a total of 608 cases of penetrating splenic injury were included. Nonoperative management was applied in 123 patients (20.4%, range 17-33%). An overall failure rate of NOM of 18% was calculated. Mortality was not seen in patients selected for nonoperative management. Contra-indicatons for NOM included hemodynamic instability, absence of abdominal CT-scanning to rule out concurrent injuries and peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS:This review demonstrates that non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma in highly selected patients has been utilized in several well-equipped and experienced trauma centers. NOM of penetrating splenic injury in selected patients is not associated with increased morbidity nor mortality. Data on the less well-equipped and experienced trauma centers are not available. More prospective studies are required to further define exact selection criteria for non-operative management in splenic trauma.

SUBMITTER: Teuben M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6910899 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selective non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: a systematic review.

Teuben Michel M Spijkerman Roy R Pfeifer Roman R Blokhuis Taco T Huige Josephine J Pape Hans-Christoph HC Leenen Luke L

European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society 20190410 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>The treatment of abdominal solid organ injuries has shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). However, the feasibility of NOM for penetrating splenic trauma is unclear and outcome is believed to be worse than NOM for penetrating liver and kidney injuries. Hence, the aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility of selective NOM in penetrating splenic injury.<h4>Methods</h4>A review of literature was performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane dat ...[more]

PMID: 30972434

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION: The goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay. METHODS: For this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST. RESULTS: We identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison. CONCLUSIONS: NOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups.

Project description:IntroductionOver the past decades, the treatment for blunt splenic injuries has shifted from operative to non-operative management. Interventional radiology such as splenic arterial embolisation generally increases the success rate of non-operative management. However, the type of intervention, such as the first definitive treatment for haemostasis (interventional radiology or surgery) in blunt splenic injuries is unclear. Therefore, we aim to clarify whether interventional radiology improves mortality in patients with blunt splenic trauma compared with operative management by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic bibliographic databases to retrieve relevant articles for the literature review: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include controlled trials and observational studies published until September 2018. We will screen search results, assess the study population, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Two review authors will extract data independently, and discrepancies will be identified and resolved through a discussion with a third author where necessary. Data from eligible studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test and the I² statistic, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. We will conduct sensitivity analyses according to several factors relevant for the heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationOur study does not require ethical approval as it is based on the findings of previously published articles. This systematic review will provide guidance on selecting a method for haemostasis of splenic injuries and may also identify knowledge gaps that could direct further research in the field. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42018108304.

Project description:BackgroundA randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains the pinnacle of clinical research design. However, RCTs in neurosurgery, especially those comparing surgery to non-operative treatment, are rare and their relevance and applicability have been questioned. This study set out to assess trial design and quality and identify their influence on outcomes in recent neurosurgical trials that compare surgery to non-operative treatment.MethodsFrom 2000 to 2017, PubMed and Embase databases and four trial registries were searched. RCTs were evaluated for study design, funding, adjustments to reported outcome measures, accrual of patients, and academic impact.ResultsEighty-two neurosurgical RCTs were identified, 40 in spine disorders, 19 neurovascular and neurotrauma, 11 functional neurosurgery, ten peripheral nerve, and two pituitary surgery. Eighty-four RCTs were registered, of which some are ongoing. Trial registration rate differed per subspecialty. Funding was mostly from non-industry institutions (58.5%), but 25.6% of RCTs did not report funding sources. 36.4% of RCTs did not report a difference between surgical and non-operative treatment, 3.7% favored non-operative management. Primary and secondary outcome measures were changed in 13.2% and 34.2% of RCTs respectively and varied by subspecialty. 41.9% of RCTs subtracted ≥ 10% of the anticipated accrual and 12.9% of RCTs added ≥ 10%. 7.3% of registered RCTs were terminated, mostly due to too slow recruitment. Subspecialty, registration, funding, masking, population size, and changing outcome measures were not significantly associated with a reported benefit of surgery. High Jadad scores (≥ 4) were negatively associated with a demonstration of surgical benefit (P < 0.05).ConclusionsNeurosurgical RCTs comparing surgical to non-operative treatment often find a benefit for surgical treatment. Changes to outcome measurements and anticipated accrual are common and funding sources are not always reported.

Project description:The study aims to describe the evidence-based management and controversies in blunt splenic trauma.A shift from operative management to non-operative management (NOM) has occurred over the past decades where NOM has now become the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) is generally believed to increase the success rate of NOM. Not all the available evidence is that optimistic about SAE however. A morbidity specifically related to SAE of up to 47% has been reported. Although high-grade splenic injury is a prognostic factor for failure of NOM, an American research group has published a study in which NOM is performed in over half of haemodynamically stable patients with grade IV or V splenic injury without leading to an increased morbidity (in terms of complications) or mortality. Another area of current investigation in the literature is the exact indication for SAE. Although the generally accepted indication is the presence of vascular injury, a topic of current investigation is whether there might be a role for pre-emptive embolisation in patients with high-grade splenic injury. On the other hand, evidence is also emerging that not all blushes require an intervention (small blushes <1 or 1.5 cm do not). Lastly, the available evidence shows that splenic function is preserved after embolisation, and therefore, the routine administration of vaccinations seems not to be necessary. There might be a difference between proximal and distal embolisations; however, with regard to splenic function, in favour of distal embolisation.Nowadays, NOM is the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. The available evidence (although with a relatively small number of patients) shows that splenic function is preserved after NOM, a major advantage compared to splenectomy. SAE is used as an adjunct to observation in order to increase the success rate of NOM. Operative management should be applied in case of haemodynamic instability or if associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgical treatment are present. Patient selection (which patient can be safely treated non-operatively, does every blush needs to be embolised?, which patients might be better off with direct operative intervention given the patient and injury characteristics) is an ongoing subject of further research. Future studies should also focus on long-term outcomes of patients treated with embolisation (e.g. total number of lifetime infectious episodes requiring antibiotic treatment or hospital admission, quality of life).

Project description:BACKGROUND: Despite a widespread shift to selective non-operative management (SNOM) for blunt splenic trauma, there remains uncertainty regarding the role of adjuncts such as interventional radiological techniques, the need for follow-up imaging, and the incidence of long-term complications. We evaluated the success of SNOM (including splenic artery embolization, SAE) for the management of blunt splenic injuries in severely injured patients. METHODS: Retrospective review (1996-2007) of the Alberta Trauma Registry and health records for blunt splenic trauma patients, aged 18 and older, with injury severity scores of 12 or greater, admitted to the Foothills Medical Centre. RESULTS: Among 538 eligible patients, 150 (26%) underwent early operative intervention. The proportion of patients managed by SNOM rose from 50 to 78% over the study period, with an overall success rate of SNOM of 87%, while injury acuity remained unchanged over time. Among SNOM failures, 65% underwent surgery within 24 hours of admission. Splenic arterial embolization (SAE) was used in only 7% of patients managed non-operatively, although at least 21% of failed SNOM had contrast extravasation potentially amenable to SAE. Among Calgary residents undergoing SNOM, hospital readmission within six months was required in three (2%), all of whom who required emergent intervention (splenectomy 2, SAE 1) and in whom none had post-discharge follow-up imaging. Overall, the use of post-discharge follow-up CT imaging was low following SNOM (10%), and thus no CT images identified occult hemorrhage or pseudoaneurysm. We observed seven cases of delayed splenic rupture in our population which occurred from five days to two months following initial injury. Three of these occurred in the post-discharge period requiring readmission and intervention. CONCLUSIONS: SNOM was the initial treatment strategy for most patients with blunt splenic trauma with 13% requiring subsequent operative intervention intended for the spleen. Cases of delayed splenic rupture occurred up to two months following initial injury. The low use of both follow-up imaging and SAE make assessment of the utility of these adjuncts difficult and adherence to formalized protocols will be required to fully assess the benefit of multi-modality management strategies.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of osteoporotic pelvic fractures in elderly patient is rising. This brings an increasing burden on health and social care systems as these injuries often lead to prolonged hospital admissions, loss of independence, morbidity and mortality. Some centres now advocate stabilisation of these injuries to reduce pain, facilitate early mobilisation, decrease hospital stay and restore independence. A systematic review of the literature was planned to establish the evidence for this intervention.MethodsA systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A clinical librarian performed a search of the following databases: NHS Evidence, TRIP, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Seventeen eligible studies were identified with 766 patients.ResultsThe quality of evidence was poor with no good quality randomised trials. The majority of injuries were minimally displaced. Posterior ring injuries were most often stabilised with percutaneous screws which were sometimes augmented with void filler. A number of techniques were described for stabilisation of the anterior ring although fixation of the anterior ring was frequently not performed. There was consistent evidence from the included studies that operative intervention significantly improved pain. Complications were minimal but there were increased failure rates when a single unaugmented sacroiliac joint screw was used. The limited availability of non-operative comparators made it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of surgical over non-surgical management in these patients.ConclusionsOperative management of fragility fractures of the pelvis should be considered for patients failing a brief period of non-operative management, however prospective randomised trials need to be performed to provide improved evidence for this intervention. Surgeons should consider which fixation techniques for fragility fractures of the pelvis are robust enough to allow immediate weightbearing, whilst minimising operative morbidity and post-operative complications. PROSPERO Systematic Review ID: CRD42020171237.

Project description:BackgroundA widespread shift to non-operative management (NOM) for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries has been observed in most centers worldwide. Furthermore, many countries introduced safety measures to systematically reduce severe traffic and leisure sports injuries. This study aims to evaluate the effect of these nationwide implementations on individual patient characteristics and outcomes through a time-trend analysis over 17?years in an Austrian high-volume trauma center.MethodsA retrospective review of all emergency trauma patients admitted to the Medical University of Innsbruck from 2000 to 2016. Injury severity, clinical data on admission, operative and non-operative treatment parameters, complications, and in-hospital mortality were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 731 patients were treated with blunt hepatic and/or splenic injuries. Among these, 368 had a liver injury, 280 splenic injury, and 83 combined hepatic/splenic injury. Initial NOM was performed in 82.6% of all patients (93.5% in hepatic and 71.8% in splenic injuries) with a success rate of 96.7%. The secondary failure rate of NOM was 3.3% and remained consistent over 17?years (p?=?0.515). In terms of injury severity, we observed a reduction over time, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 4.8% and 3.5% in the NOM group (decreasing from 7.5 to 1.9% and from 5.6 to 1.3%, respectively). These outcomes confirmed an improved utilization of the NOM approach.ConclusionOur cohort represents one of the largest Central European single-center experiences available in the literature. NOM is the standard of care for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries and successful in >?96% of all patients. This rate was quite constant over 17?years (p?=?0.515). Overall, national and regional safety measures resulted in a significantly decreased severity of observed injury patterns and deaths due to blunt hepatic or splenic trauma. Although surgery is nowadays only applied in about one third of splenic injury patients in our center, these numbers might further decrease by intensified application of interventional radiology and modern coagulation management.

Dataset Information

Selective non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: a systematic review.

Publications

Selective non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets