• Pamela J P Bruce, Stephen D Helmer, Paul B Harrison, Tony Sirico, and James M Haan.
• Department of Surgery, The University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS, USA.
• Am. J. Surg. 2011 Dec 1; 202 (6): 810-5; discussion 815-6.

BackgroundThis study analyzed outcomes and cost of splenic embolization compared with surgery for the management of blunt splenic injury.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of all patients admitted with isolated, blunt splenic injury. An intent-to-treat analysis was initially conducted. Outcomes and cost/charges were compared in patients treated with embolization and surgical treatment.ResultsOf 236 patients admitted with isolated, blunt splenic injury, 190 patients were ultimately managed by observation, 31 by splenic embolization, and 15 by surgical management. Comparing outcomes and cost data for splenic embolization versus surgical management, there was no significant difference in intensive care unit use, hospital stay, complications, or re-admission. Surgical management patients required more blood transfusions and incurred higher procedure charges. Conversely, splenic embolization patients underwent more radiologic evaluations and charges. Total procedure-related charges were higher for surgical management when compared with splenic embolization ($28,709 vs $19,062; P = .016), but total hospital cost and total hospital charges were not significantly different.ConclusionsNonsurgical treatment of blunt splenic injury is safe and cost effective. Angioembolization was statistically similar to surgical therapy regarding cost.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

24 keywords...

hide…