• F Cinquantini, E Simonini, S Di Saverio, C Cecchelli, S H Kwan, F Ponti, C Coniglio, G Tugnoli, and P Torricelli.
• Departement d'imagerie Medicale, CHM, 194 Av Rubillard, 72037, Le Mans, France. f.cinquantini@gmail.com.
• Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018 Sep 1; 41 (9): 1324-1332.

PurposeThe objective of our study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of non-operative management (NOM) and splenic artery embolization (SAE) in the management of hemodynamically stable patients with splenic injuries.Materials And MethodsIn a 5-year period, 109 patients were recorded; 60/109 were treated with NOM and 49/109 with SAE. For each patient, the following parameters were assessed: Glasgow coma scale, injury severity score, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury grade, transfusion requirements, hemoglobin level, presence of a splenic vascular lesion (SVL) and amount of hemoperitoneum (Bessoud scale). Different SAE techniques (proximal, distal, combined) with different materials were employed. Clinical success was defined as spleen conservation at 30 days; failure was defined as spleen re-bleeding within 30 days, requiring splenectomy. Student's t test or Chi-square analysis and the Kaplan-Mayer curve were used to analyse each group's results and compare them with those of the other group.ResultsIn the SAE group, AAST splenic injury grade was higher and serum hemoglobin levels were lower. The SAE group had significantly more SVL and hemoperitoneum compared to the NOM group. The clinical success rate was not significantly different between groups (NOM = 95%, SAE = 87.8%; p = 0.16). Sixty-six percent of NOM failures were related to inadequate patient selection, while 67% of SAE failures were due to technical/procedural issues.ConclusionOur study observed a high splenic salvage rate with the use of SAE as an adjunct to NOM, and suggests that it may be further improved with appropriate patient selection and an improved embolization technique.

24 keywords...

hide…