Western Trauma Association (WTA) critical decisions in trauma: management of adult blunt splenic trauma.

Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.35). 12/2008; 65(5):1007-11. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31818a93bf
Source: PubMed
  • Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 10/2013; 33(7):741-742. · 0.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of more accurate imaging modalities, specifically multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), the diagnosis of non-ischemic (NI-) and ischemic (I-) blunt hollow viscus and mesenteric injury (BHVMI) remains challenging. We hypothesized that BHVMI can be still missed with newer generations of MDCT and that patients with I-BHVMI have a poorer outcome than those with NI-BHVMI. METHODS: We performed an eight-year retrospective review at a level 1 trauma center. Ischemic-BHVMI was defined as devascularization confirmed at laparotomy. Non-ischemic-BHVMI included perforation, laceration, and hematoma without devascularization. The sensitivity of each generation of MDCT for BHVMI was calculated. Potential predictors and outcomes of I-BHVMI were compared to the NI-BHVMI group. RESULTS: Of 7,875 blunt trauma patients, 67 patients (0.8 %) were included in the BHVMI group; 13 patients did not have any CT findings suggestive of BHVMI (sensitivity 81 %), and 11 of them underwent surgical intervention without delay (<5 h). Newer generations of MDCT were not associated with higher sensitivity. Patients with I-BHVMI had a significantly higher rate of delayed laparotomy ≥12 h (23 % versus 2 %; p = 0.01) and a significantly longer length of hospital stay (median 14 versus 9 days; p = 0.02) than those with NI-BHVMI. CONCLUSIONS: Even using an advanced imaging technique, the diagnosis of I-BHVMI can be delayed, with significant negative impact on patient outcome.
    World Journal of Surgery 12/2012; · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Colonoscopy is reported to be a safe procedure that is routinely performed for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases. Splenic rupture is considered to be a rare complication with high mortality and morbidity that requires immediate diagnosis and management. Nonoperative management (NOM), surgical treatment (ST), and, more recently, proximal splenic artery embolization (PSAE) have been proposed as treatment options. The goal of this study was to assess whether PSAE is safe even in high-grade ruptures. METHODS: We report two rare cases of post colonoscopy splenic rupture. A systematic review of the literature from 2002 to 2010 (first reported case of PSAE) was performed and the three types of treatment compared. RESULTS: All patients reviewed (77 of 77) presented with intraperitoneal hemorrhage due to isolated splenic trauma. Splenic rupture was high-grade in most patients when grading was possible. Six of 77 patients (7.8 %) were treated with PSAE, including the 2 cases reported herein. Fifty-seven patients (74 %) underwent ST. NOM was attempted first in 25 patients with a high failure rate (11 of 25 [44 %]) and requiring a salvage procedure, such as PSAE or ST. Previous surgery (31 of 59 patients), adhesions (10 of 13), diagnostic colonoscopies (49 of 71), previous biopsies or polypectomies (31 of 57) and female sex (56 of 77) were identified as risk factors. In contrast, splenomegaly (0 of 77 patients), medications that increase the risk of bleeding (13 of 30) and difficult colonoscopies (16 of 51) were not identified as risk factors. PSAE was safe and effective even in elderly patients with comorbidities and those taking medications that increase the risk of bleeding, and the length of the hospital stay was similar to that after ST. CONCLUSION: We propose a treatment algorithm based on clinical and radiological criteria. Because of the high failure rate after NOM, PSAE should be the treatment of choice to manage grade I through IV splenic ruptures after colonoscopy in hemodynamically stabilized patients.
    CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 12/2012; · 2.09 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 6, 2014