Western Trauma Association (WTA) critical decisions in trauma: management of adult blunt splenic trauma.
- 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
Western Trauma Association (WTA) Critical Decisions in
Trauma: Management of Adult Blunt Splenic Trauma
Frederick A. Moore, MD, James W. Davis, MD, Ernest E. Moore, Jr., MD, Christine S. Cocanour, MD,
Michael A. West, MD, and Robert C. McIntyre, Jr., MD
J Trauma. 2008;65:1007–1011.
based on the expert opinion of WTA members and published
observational studies. We recognize that variability in deci-
sion making will continue. We hope this management algo-
rithm will encourage institutions to develop local protocols
based on the resources that are available and local expert
consensus opinion to apply the safest, most reliable manage-
ment strategies for their patients. What works at one institu-
tion may not work at another. The algorithm contains letters
A through K, which corresponds to lettered text. This text is
intentionally concise and its purpose is to navigate the reader
through the algorithm and to identify and discuss the gray
zones in the logic of this decision making. This annotated
algorithm is intended to (a) serve as a quick reference for
bedside clinicians, (b) foster more detailed patient care pro-
tocols that will allow for prospective collection of data to
identify best practices, and (c) generate research projects to
answer specific questions concerning decision making in the
management of adult blunt splenic trauma.
his is a position article from members of the Western
Trauma Association (WTA). Because there are no pro-
spective randomized trials, the algorithm (Fig. 1) is
Management of blunt splenic trauma has changed dras-
tically during the past 30 years. In the mid-1970s, recognition
of the spleen’s immunologic importance and the lifelong risk
of overwhelming postsplenectomy sepsis provided the ra-
tionale for avoiding splenectomy. Although the adult sur-
geons were focused on perfecting operative splenic salvage
techniques,1–3the pediatric surgeons provided convincing
evidence that the best way to salvage the spleen was not to
operate.4–6Adult trauma surgeons were slow to adopt non-
operative management (NOM) because early reports of its
use in adults documented a 30% to 70% failure rate of which
two-thirds underwent total splenectomy.7–10There was also a
concern about missing serious concomitant intra-abdominal
injuries.11–13However, with increasing experience with NOM,
recognition that negative laparotomies caused significant
morbidity and the availability of higher quality computerized
tomographic (CT) scanning, NOM became the standard of
care for adults by the mid-1990s.14–19Over the next decade,
the percentage of patients in which NOM was pursued in-
creased from 30% to 60% to as high as 85% as previous
expert opinion contra-indications (e.g. advanced age, fear of
missing a hollow viscus injury (HVI), ?2 units of packed
red blood cell transfusion, neurologic impairment, and
high grades injuries) were refuted.20–26Additionally, angio-
embolization (AE) was increasingly used as a NOM adjunct,
and the reported failure rate of 12% to 13% dropped to as low
as 2%.27–36It is unclear whether this decrease in the failure
rate is due to the success of AE or more liberal definitions of
failure. Table 1 lists the most recent updated series of adult
splenic trauma from US trauma centers (series with ?150
cases published since 2000). Variability in management strat-
egies still exist. Important factors that drive management
decisions in these trauma centers include (a) presence and
severity of hemodynamic instability, (b) results of the initial
workup of blunt abdominal trauma, which includes some
combination of the focused abdominal sonography for trauma
(FAST) examination, abdominal CT scan, and diagnostic
peritoneal aspirate or diagnostic peritoneal lavage, (c) avail-
ability and indications for angiography, (d) definition of fail-
ure, and (e) use of follow-up abdominal CT scanning.
Annotated Text For Figure 1
A. The initial assessment of patients with suspected blunt
abdominal trauma should focus on the abdominal exam-
ination (tenderness and abdominal wall eccymosis), vital
signs, and response to resuscitation. In patients with ev-
idence of shock or overt serious injury, blood should be
Submitted for publication April 17, 2008.
Accepted for publication August 14, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
From the Weill Cornell Medical College (F.A.M.), New York, New
York; University of California, San Francisco (J.W.D.), San Francisco,
California; University of Colorado Health Science Center (E.E.M., R.C.M.),
Denver, Colorado; University of California Davis Medical Center (C.S.C.),
Sacramento, California; and Northwestern University (M.A.W.), Chicago,
Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Western Trauma Association
February 24–March 1, 2008, Squaw Creek, Olympic Valley, California.
Address for reprints: Frederick A. Moore, MD, Department of
Surgery, 6550 Fannin Street, SM1661A, Houston, TX 77030; email:
The Journal of TRAUMA?Injury, Infection, and Critical Care
Volume 65 • Number 5
immediately drawn for laboratory testing including com-
plete blood count, electrolytes, markers of metabolic
stress (base deficit or lactate), coagulation profile, and
blood typing. Adequate intravenous (IV) access should be
obtained for resuscitation and potential IV contrast
administration. There is considerable variability in the
definition of hemodynamic instability and there is no
validated scoring system. Table 2 depicts a modified
hemodynamic instability score.36Systolic blood pressure
?90 mm Hg to define significant hypotension and heart
rate ?130 beat per minute to define serious tachycardia
was taken from the recently published guidelines for
shock resuscitation developed by the National Institutes
of Health sponsored Glue Grant consortium.37Baseline
systolic blood pressure and heart rate, how they response
to initial advanced trauma life support recommended vol-
ume loading and the need for ongoing for resuscitation
are used to grade hemodynamic instability. We propose
that this score be used for early triage decision making
and be validated in prospective studies. Stable patients
(grade 0–2) should be triaged to the CT scanner.
B. Unstable patients (grade 3–5) should have a FAST exam-
ination done (if available and reliable) after the initial
ABCs. Patients who stabilize with initial volume loading
and require modest ongoing resuscitation (grade 3) may
be triaged to the CT scanner if readily available. Grade 3
patients who are FAST (?) are presumed to have a
hemoperitoneum. This information should prompt closer
Fig. 1. Adult blunt splenic trauma.
Table 1 Updated United States Adult Splenic Trauma Case Series Since 2000
Total NOM, n (%)Angio (%)Failure (%)Mortality (%)
UT Houston 200021
UT Knoxville 200135
UT San Antonio 200429
University of Michigan 200430
University of Maryland 200531
Case Western 200532
UT Memphis 200733
University of Pittsburgh 200734
* One death attributed to nonoperative management (NOM).
NR, not reported.
Table 2 Hemodynamic Instability Score38
Grade 0: No significant hypotension (systolic blood pressure ?SBP?
?90 mm Hg) or serious tachycardia (heart rate ?HR? ?130)
Grade 1: Hypotension or tachycardia by report but none recorded
in emergency department (ED)
Grade 2: Hypotension or tachycardia responsive to initial volume
loading with no ongoing fluid or PRBC requirement
Grade 3: Hypotension or tachycardia responsive to initial volume
loading with modest ongoing fluid (?250 mL/h) or PRBC
Grade 4: Hypotension or tachycardia only responsive to ?2 L of
volume loading and the need for vigorous ongoing fluid infusion
(?250 mL/h) and PRBC transfusion
Grade 5: Hypotension unresponsive to fluid and PRBC transfusion
The Journal of TRAUMA?Injury, Infection, and Critical Care
monitoring and quicker processing through the CT scan-
ner. On the other hand, FAST (?) patients who require
vigorous ongoing resuscitation (grade 4 and 5 instability)
should be triaged to the operating room (OR). In some
cases patients with grade 4 instability might be triaged to
the CT scanner with caution. This would be a reasonable
option if the CT scanner is readily available and (a) a
plausible explanation for instability exists (e.g., tension
pneumothorax, pelvic fracture, neurogenic shock), or (b)
the CT scan results will change triage decision making
(e.g., epidural hematoma requiring craniotomy, torn tho-
racic aorta requiring thoracotomy, massive brain injury to
declare futility, or vascular blush associated with a pelvic
fracture prompting AE).
C. A negative FAST does not reliably exclude intraperito-
neal hemorrhage and should be repeated again as part of
the secondary survey. Grade 5 instability with a negative
FAST examination is an uncomfortable scenario. It is not
prudent to triage this patient to the CT scanner, rather this
patient should stay in the trauma resuscitation room and
differential diagnosis of refractory shock should be pur-
sued. If a missed source of hemorrhage is still a concern,
despite a second negative FAST in an unstable patient,
a diagnostic peritoneal aspirate should be considered.
A viable alternative is to go directly to the OR in patients at
risk of imminent cardiac arrest for exploratory laparotomy.
D. Other causes of persistent instability include exsanguinat-
ing hemorrhage from a severe pelvic fracture and massive
hemothorax, whereas causes of nonhemorrhagic shock
include tension pneumothorax, cardiac tamponade,
myocardial contusion or infarction, air embolism, and
E. Abdominal CT scanning is the gold standard diagnostic
test if NOM is to be pursued. Appropriate timing of IV
contrast is crucial to define the extent of splenic injury and
identify vascular blushes. Controversy exists over the
need for oral contrast to diagnose HVI and its potential for
causing severe aspiration pneumonitis.38
F. Although the grade of splenic injury (Table 3) does cor-
relate with success of NOM, it is not accurate enough to
predict failure or success in individual patients.39,40There
is a selection bias in who gets a CT scan. Patients with
high grade injuries who are bleeding profusely are triaged
early to the OR based on grade of instability and the
results of the FAST examination. Additionally, in blunt
trauma the spleen tends to fracture along the relatively
avascular plains between the segmental polar arteries. As
a result, the severity of the injury seems severe because
there is a deep laceration into the parenchyma but there is
only limited bleeding.
G. As CT scanning technology has improved, more blushes
are being seen and these may be helpful in predicting
failure of NOM. A modified Splenic Injury Scale that
incorporates vascular blush information into the anatomic
descriptions used in the American Association for the
Surgery of Trauma scoring system has been developed
but needs validation.41
At this point in time, if vascular blush is seen on the
initial CT scan and the patient is hemodynamically stable,
screening angiography may be used as an adjunct to NOM
based on local consensus. In patients with grade 3–4 hemo-
dynamic instability, triage to the OR is prudent unless inter-
vention radiology is immediately available. Patients with
grade 5 instability should be taken directly to the OR. If a
blush is seen on a delayed follow-up CT scan, screening
angiography is recommended in the hemodynamically stable
patient. There is considerable variability in the use of angiog-
raphy across centers (Table 1). Although more aggressive use
of angiography is associated with the highest rates of NOM
(?80%) and the lowest rates of failure (2–5%), there is
ongoing debate over the optimal use of this intervention
because it is labor intensive and there have been several reports
that document a surprisingly high rate of complications.27,28In
our WTA multi-institutional experience, we reported on 140
patients who underwent AE, of which 27 (20%) suffered
major complications including 16 (11%) failure to control
bleeding (requiring 9 splenectomies and 7 repeat AE), 4 (3%)
missed injuries, 6 (4%) splenic abscesses, and 1 iatrogenic
H. Arteriograghy requires transport to the interventional ra-
diologist suite, where the patient should be monitored to
the same standards as an intensive care unit. Therapeutic
embolization is done if an aneurysm, arteriovenous fis-
tula, or extravasation is found on the screening angio-
gram. There is some controversy over the optimal method
of AE (i.e., main splenic artery embolization vs. distal
selective artery embolization vs. combination). Main
splenic artery embolization reduces bleeding by reducing
perfusion pressure, but this may not prevent late
Table 3 American Association for the Surgery of
Trauma Splenic Injury Scale (1994 Revision)42
Grade* Injury Description
I Hematoma subcapsular, ?10% surface area
Laceration capsular, ?1 cm parenchymal depth
Hematoma subcapsular, 10–50% surface area, ?5 cm
Laceration, 1–3 cm depth which does not involve
Hematoma subcapsular, ?50% surface area or
Ruptured subcapsular or parenchymal hematoma
Intrapaenchymal hematoma ?5 cm or expanding
Laceration ?3 cm depth or involving trabecular vessel
Laceration involving segmental or hilar vessels producing
Devascularization (?25% of spleen)
Laceration, completely shattered spleen
Vascular, hilar vascular injury which devascularizes
* Advance one grade for multiple injuries, up to grade 3.
Management of Adult Blunt Splenic Trauma
Volume 65 • Number 5
pseudoanuerysm rupture and will likely not treat an arte-
riovenous fistula.42On the other hand, distal selective
embolization can effectively stop blood flow in polar
arteries but can result in tissue infarction with local ab-
scess formation. Local expert consensus should standard-
ize these practices and prospectively characterize patient
outcomes to define the best technique.
I. When pursuing NOM of splenic injuries it is important to
exclude other injuries that require operative intervention.
Historically, the risk of missing a HVI received the most
attention. In the eight recent series depicted in Table 1,
where the average frequency of NOM was 70%, there was
only one case of a missed HVI in the 2,355 patients
selected for NOM. This was a missed colon injury and
accounted for the only death in these series attributable to
J. When failure due to bleeding is dichotomized as before or
after 48 hours (early vs. late), there is a low but disturbing
incidence of late bleeds (2–4%) presumably due to de-
layed rupture of splenic artery pseudoanuerysms.26,43,44
These late bleeds tend to occur at 4 days to 8 days, but
some occur weeks later. The practice of obtaining fol-
low-up CT scans is also quite variable. The University of
Tennessee Memphis group has championed the concept
of obtaining CT scans before early hospital discharge of
patients with high grade splenic injuries. However, their
most recent series demonstrates that roughly a quarter of
pseudoanuerysms occurred in grade 1 and 2 injuries and
over half occurred in grade 3 injuries. This is another
issue that requires prospective study before definitive
recommendations can be made. In general, follow-up CT
scans as out patients are not helpful but may be used
selectively to confirm healing in patients who are asking
to be released to pursue high risk behavior (such a bull
riding or football).
K. The decision of whether to perform a splenectomy is
dependent on the patient’s condition and associated
injuries. Unfortunately, most patients go to the OR
because of hemodynamically instability and splenec-
tomy is the most prudent option. Splenic salvage
should be pursued in the hemodynamically stable pa-
tient. Techniques include topical hemostatic agents, argon
beam coagulation, direct suture repair, partial resection,
wrapping the spleen with absorbable mesh, and splenic
reimplantation. Pledgets are generally used when suturing
splenic lacerations and margins of segmental resections. It
is important to confirm hemostasis before closure of the
midline fascia. Packing of the spleen in damage control
surgery should be discouraged because splenectomy is
fairly simple and definitive. Splenic reimplantation in a
patient without significant bacterial contamination is a
safe but unproven method of preserving splenic function
to protect against overwhelming postsplenectomy
1. Shackford SR, Sise MJ, Virgilio RW, Peters RM. Evaluation of
splenorrhaphy: a grading system for splenic trauma. J Trauma. 1981;
2. Pachter HL, Hofstetter SR, Spencer FC. Evolving concepts in
splenic surgery. Ann Surg. 1981;194:262–269.
3.Millikan JS, Moore EE, Moore GE, Stevens RE. Alternatives to
splenectomy in adults after trauma. Am J Surg. 1982;144:711–
4. Wesson DE, Filler RM, Ein SH, Shandling B, Simpson JS, Stephens
CA. Ruptured spleen—when to operate? J Pediatr Surg. 1981;
5. Haller JA, Papa P, Drugas G, Colombani P. Nonoperative
management of solid organ injuries in children. Ann Surg. 1994;
6.Coburn MC, Pfeifer J, DeLuca FG. Nonoperative management of
splenic and hepatic trauma in the multiply injured pediatric and
adolescent patient. Arch Surg. 1995;130:332–338.
7. Malangoni MA, Levine AW, Droege EA, Aprahamian C, Condon
RE. Management of injury to the spleen in adults. Ann Surg. 1994;
8. Mahon PA, Sutton JE. Nonoperative management of adult splenic
injury due to blunt trauma: a warning. Am J Surg. 1985;149:716–
9.Mucha P, Daly RC, Farnell MC. Selective management of blunt
splenic trauma. J Trauma. 1986;26:970–979.
10. Nallathambi MN, Ivatury RR, Wapnir I, Rohman M, Stahl WM.
Nonoperative management versus early operation for blunt splenic
trauma in adults. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988;166:252–258.
11. Traub AC, Perry JF. Injuries associated with splenic trauma.
J Trauma. 1981;21:840–846.
12.Livingston CD, Sirinek KR, Levine BA, Aust JB. Traumatic splenic
injury. Arch Surg. 1982;117:670–674.
13.Buckman RF, Piano G, Dunham M, Soutter I, Ramzy A, Militello
PR. Major bowel and diaphragmatic injuries associated with blunt
spleen or liver rupture. J Trauma. 1988;28:1317–1320.
14.Cogbill TH, Moore EE, Jurkovich GJ, et al. Nonoperative
management of blunt splenic trauma: a multicenter experience.
J Trauma. 1989;29:1312–1317.
15.Archer LP, Rogers FB, Shackford SR. Selective nonoperative
management of liver and spleen injuries in neurologically impaired
adult patients. Arch Surg. 1996;131:309–315.
16. Pachter HL, Guth AA, Hofstetter SR, Spencer FC. Changing patterns
in the management of splenic trauma. Ann Surg. 1998;227:708–719.
17.Weigelt JA, Kingman RG. Complications of negative laparotomy for
trauma. Am J Surg. 1988;156:544–547.
18.Renz BM, Feliciano DV. Unnecessary laparotomies for trauma: a
prospective study of morbidity. J Trauma. 1995;38:350–356.
19. Ross SE, Dragon GM, O’Malley KF, Rehm CG. Morbidity of
negative celiotomy in trauma. Injury. 1995;26:393–394.
20. Luna GK, Dellinger EP. Nonoperative observation therapy for
splenic injuries: a safe therapeutic option? Am J Surg. 1987;
21. Cocanour CS, Moore FA, Ware DN, Marvin RG, Duke JH. Age
should not be a consideration for nonoperative management of blunt
splenic injury. J Trauma. 2000;48:606–612.
22.Smith JS, Cooney RN, Mucha P. Nonoperative management of the
ruptured spleen: a revalidation of criteria. Surgery. 1996;120:745–
23. Konstantakos AK, Barnoski AL, Plaisier BR, Yowler CJ, Fallon WF
Jr, Malangoni MA. Optimizing the management of blunt splenic
injury in adults and children. Surgery. 1999;126:805–813.
24.Peitzman AB, Heil B, Rivera L, et al. Blunt Splenic injury in adults:
Multi-institutional Study of the Eastern Association for the Surgery
of Trauma. J Trauma. 2000;49:187–189.
The Journal of TRAUMA?Injury, Infection, and Critical Care
25.Selafani SJA, Shaftan GW, Scalea TM, et al. Nonoperative salvage
of computed tomography-diagnosed splenic injuries: utilization of
angiography for triage and embolization for hemostasis. J Trauma.
Davis KA, Fabian TC, Croce MA, Gavin TJ. Improved success in
nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries: embolization of
splenic artery pseudoanuerysms. J Trauma. 1998;44:1008–1012.
Haan J, Scott J, Boyd-Kranis RL, Ho S, Kramer M, Scalea TM.
Admission angiography for blunt splenic injury: advantages and
pitfalls. J Trauma. 2001;51:1161–1165.
Haan JM, Biffl W, Knudson MM, et al. Splenic embolization
revisited: a multicenter review. J Trauma. 2004;56:542–547.
Dent D, Alsabrook G, Erickson BA, et al. Blunt splenic injuries:
high nonoperative management rate can be achieved with selective
embolization. J Trauma. 2004;56:1063–1067.
Wahl WL, Ahrns KS, Chen S, Hemmila MR, Rowe SA, Arbabi S.
Blunt splenic injury: operation versus angiographic embolization.
Haan JM, Bochicchio GV, Kramer N, Scalea TM. Nonoperative
management of blunt splenic injury: a 5-year experience. J Trauma.
Rajani RR, Claridge JA, Yowler CH, et al. Improved outcome of
adult blunt splenic injury: a cohort analysis. Surgery. 2006;140:625–
Weinberg JA, Magnotti LJ, Croce MA, Edwards NM, Fabian TC.
The utility of serial computed tomography imaging of blunt splenic
injury: still worth a second look? J Trauma. 2007;62:1143–1148.
Harbrecht BG, Ko SH, Watson GA, Forsythe RM, Rosengart MR,
Peitzman AB. Angiography for blunt splenic trauma does not
improve the success rate of nonoperative management. J Trauma.
Nix JA, Costanza M, Daley BJ, Powell MA, Enderson BL. Outcome
of the current management of splenic injuries. J Trauma. 2001;
36. Meredith JW, Young JS, Bowling J, Roboussin D. Nonoperative
management of blunt hepatic trauma: the exception or the rule?
J Trauma. 1994;36:529–535.
Moore FA, McKinley BA, Moore EE, et al. Inflammation and the
Host Response to Injury, a large-scale collaborative project: patient-
oriented research core—standard operating procedures for clinical
care. III. Guidelines for shock resuscitation. J Trauma. 2006;61:82–89.
Allen GS, Moore FA, Cox CS, Mehall JR, Duke JH. Delayed
diagnosis of blunt duodenal injury: an avoidable complication. J Am
Coll Surg. 1998;187:393–399.
Kohn JS, Clark D, Isler RJ, Pope CF. Is computed tomographic
grading of splenic injury useful in nonsurgical management of blunt
trauma. J Trauma. 1994;36:385–389.
Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ, Shackford SR, Malangoni
MA, Champion HR. Organ injury scaling: spleen and liver.
J Trauma. 1995;38:323–324.
Marmery H, Shanmuganathan K, Alexander MT, Mirvis SE.
Optimization of selection for nonoperative management of blunt
splenic injury: comparison of MDCT grading system. AJR Am J
Hann JM, Matmery H, Shanmugananthan K, Mirvis SE, Scalea TM.
Experience with splenic main coil embolization and significance of
new or persistent Pseudoaneurym: Reembloize, operate, or observe.
J Trauma. 2007;63:615–619.
Cocanour CS, Moore FA, Ware DN, Marvin RG, Clark JM, Duke
JH. Delayed complications of nonoperative management of blunt
splenic trauma. Arch Surg. 1998;133:619–625.
Crawford RS, Tabbara M, Sheridan R, Spaniolas K, Velmahos GC.
Early discharge after nonoperative management for splenic injuries:
increased patient risk caused by late failure? Surgery. 2007;142:337–
Leemans R, Snijder JA, Smit J, et al. Immune response capacity
after human splenic autotransplantation: restoration of response to
individual vaccine subtypes. Ann Surg. 1999;229:279–285.
Management of Adult Blunt Splenic Trauma
Volume 65 • Number 5