• Injury · Sep 2014

    Review

    The contemporary management of penetrating splenic injury.

    • Regan J Berg, Kenji Inaba, Obi Okoye, Jason Pasley, Pedro G Teixeira, Michael Esparza, and Demetrios Demetriades.
    • Los Angeles County Medical Center-University of Southern California, Division of Trauma Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, LAC+USC Medical Center, 2051 Marengo Street Inpatient Tower (C)-Room C5L100, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
    • Injury. 2014 Sep 1;45(9):1394-400.

    IntroductionSelective non-operative management (NOM) is standard of care for clinically stable patients with blunt splenic trauma and expectant management approaches are increasingly utilised in penetrating abdominal trauma, including in the setting of solid organ injury. Despite this evolution of clinical practice, little is known about the safety and efficacy of NOM in penetrating splenic injury.MethodsTrauma registry and medical record review identified all consecutive patients presenting to LAC+USC Medical Center with penetrating splenic injury between January 2001 and December 2011. Associated injuries, incidence and nature of operative intervention, local and systemic complications and mortality were determined.ResultsDuring the study period, 225 patients experienced penetrating splenic trauma. The majority (187/225, 83%) underwent emergent laparotomy. Thirty-eight clinically stable patients underwent a deliberate trial of NOM and 24/38 (63%) were ultimately managed without laparotomy. Amongst patients failing NOM, 3/14 (21%) underwent splenectomy while an additional 6/14 (42%) had splenorrhaphy. Hollow viscus injury (HVI) occurred in 21% of all patients failing NOM. Forty percent of all NOM patients had diaphragmatic injury (DI). All patients undergoing delayed laparotomy for HVI or a splenic procedure presented symptomatically within 24h of the initial injury. No deaths occurred in patients undergoing NOM.ConclusionsAlthough the vast majority of penetrating splenic trauma requires urgent operative management, a group of patients does present without haemodynamic instability, peritonitis or radiologic evidence of hollow viscus injury. Management of these patients is complicated as over half may remain clinically stable and can avoid laparotomy, making them potential candidates for a trial of NOM. HVI is responsible for NOM failure in up to a fifth of these cases and typically presents within 24h of injury. Delayed laparotomy, within this limited time period, did not appear to increase mortality nor preclude successful splenic salvage. In clinically stable patients, diagnostic laparoscopy remains essential to evaluate and repair occult DI. As NOM for penetrating abdominal trauma becomes more common, multi-centre data is needed to more accurately define the principles of patient selection and the limitations and consequences of this approach in the setting of splenic injury.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.