» Articles » PMID: 38097784

Feasibility of Non-operative Management for Patients Sustained Blunt Splenic Traumas with Concomitant Aortic Injuries

Overview
Date 2023 Dec 14
PMID 38097784
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to elucidate the treatment approach for blunt splenic injuries concurrently involving the aorta. We hypothesized that non-operative management failure rates would be higher in such cases, necessitating increased hemorrhage control surgeries.

Methods: Data from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program spanning 2017 to 2019 were utilized. All patients with blunt splenic trauma were considered for inclusion. We conducted comparisons between blunt splenic trauma patients with and without thoracic or abdominal aortic injuries to identify any potential disparities in treatment.

Results: Among the 32,051 patients with blunt splenic injuries during the study period, 752 (2.3%) sustained concurrent aortic injuries. Following 2:1 propensity score matching, it was determined that the presence of aortic injuries did not significantly affect the utilization of splenic transarterial angioembolization (TAE) (7.2% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.243) or the necessity for splenectomy or splenorrhaphy (15.3% vs. 15.7%, p  = 0.853). Moreover, aortic injuries were not a significant factor contributing to TAE failure, regardless of the location or severity of the injury. Patients with simultaneous splenic and aortic injuries required more red blood cell transfusion within first 4 hours (0 ml [0, 900] vs. 0 ml [0, 650], p  = 0.001) and exhibited a higher mortality rate (10.6% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.038).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that patients with concurrent aortic and splenic injuries presented with more severe conditions, higher mortality rates, and extended hospital stays. The presence of aortic injuries did not substantially influence the utilization of TAE or the necessity for splenectomy or splenorrhaphy. Patients of this type can be managed in accordance with current treatment guidelines. Nonetheless, given their less favorable prognosis, they necessitate prompt and proactive intervention.

References
1.
Stassen N, Bhullar I, Cheng J, Crandall M, Friese R, Guillamondegui O . Selective nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012; 73(5 Suppl 4):S294-300. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182702afc. View

2.
Coccolini F, Montori G, Catena F, Kluger Y, Biffl W, Moore E . Splenic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines for adult and pediatric patients. World J Emerg Surg. 2017; 12:40. PMC: 5562999. DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0151-4. View

3.
Shatz D, de Moya M, Brasel K, Brown C, Hartwell J, Inaba K . Blunt splenic injury, Emergency Department to discharge: A Western Trauma Association critical decisions algorithm. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023; 94(3):448-454. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003829. View

4.
Requarth J, DAgostino Jr R, Miller P . Nonoperative management of adult blunt splenic injury with and without splenic artery embolotherapy: a meta-analysis. J Trauma. 2011; 71(4):898-903. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318227ea50. View

5.
Rajani R, Claridge J, Yowler C, Patrick P, Wiant A, Summers J . Improved outcome of adult blunt splenic injury: a cohort analysis. Surgery. 2006; 140(4):625-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.07.005. View