Hospital factors associated with splenectomy for splenic injury: a national perspective.
ABSTRACT The management of patients with splenic injury has shifted from routine splenectomy to attempts at splenic salvage. Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS), we assessed the patterns of care for splenic trauma. We hypothesized that the processes of care in urban and rural hospitals would differ.
Generalized estimating equations were used to identify predictor variables associated with laparotomy and splenectomy from a national, population-based sample of inpatients (HCUP-NIS). Fourteen thousand nine hundred one patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification discharge diagnosis code of 865 were selected from the 1998 to 2000 HCUP-NIS data. Exclusion criteria included age greater than 80 years. Analyses were compared using all patients and excluding patients who died during the first 2 hospital days.
Eight thousand five hundred fifty-three patients were treated in urban teaching hospitals. Forty percent underwent a laparotomy and 28% underwent a splenectomy at that time. Another 4,461 patients were cared for in urban nonteaching hospitals. Of these, 46% had a laparotomy and 35% underwent a splenectomy. The remaining 1,887 patients were seen in rural hospitals. Forty-six percent had a laparotomy and 36% had a splenectomy. Patients in urban teaching hospitals had lower risk-adjusted odds of splenectomy in multivariate models controlling for confounders including overall injury severity. Overall splenic salvage increased from 1998 to 2000, primarily because of increased salvage rates among urban teaching hospitals.
The management of patients with splenic injury differs among urban teaching, urban nonteaching, and rural hospitals. Surgeons at urban teaching hospitals appear more willing to attempt splenic salvage by means of nonoperative management.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are effective in preventing thromboembolic complications after trauma. In the nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt solid abdominal organ injuries, the timing of the administration of LMWH remains controversial because of the unknown risk for bleeding. Retrospective study including patients aged 15 years or older who sustained blunt splenic, liver, and/or kidney injuries from January 2005 to December 2008. Patients were stratified according to the type and severity of organ injuries. NOM failure rates and blood transfusion requirements were compared between patients who got LMWH early (≤3 days), patients who got LMWH late (>3 days), and patients who did not receive LMWH. Overall, 312 (63.8%) patients with solid organ injuries had NOM attempted. There were 154 splenic, 144 liver, and 65 kidney injuries (1.2 organs injured per patient). Forty-one patients (13.2%) received LMWH early, 70 patients (22.4%) received LMWH late, and 201 (64.4%) patients did not receive LMWH. The early LMWH group was less severely injured compared with the late LMWH group. However, the distribution of the risk factors for failure of NOM (high-grade injury, large amount of hemoperitoneum, and contrast extravasation) was similar between the three LMWH groups. Overall, 17 of 312 patients (5.4%) failed NOM (7.8% spleen, 2.1% liver, and 3.1% kidney). All but one failure occurred before LMWH administration. After adjustment for demographic differences, the overall blood transfusion requirements for the early LMWH group was significantly lower when compared with patients with late LMWH administration (3.0±5.3 units vs. 6.4±9.9 units; adjusted p=0.027). Pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis occurred in four patients. The mortality rate for patients with splenic, liver, and kidney injuries was 3.2% and did not differ with LMWH application. In patients with solid abdominal organ injuries undergoing NOM, early use of LMWH does not seem to increase failure rates or blood transfusion requirements.The Journal of trauma 01/2011; 70(1):141-6; discussion 147. · 2.35 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Evidence-based management guidelines have been shown to improve patient outcomes, yet their utilization by trauma centers remains unknown. This study measured adoption of practice management guidelines or protocols by trauma centers. A survey of 228 trauma centers was conducted over 1 year; 55 completed the survey. Centers were classified into three groups: noncompliant, partially compliant, and compliant with adoption of management protocols. Characteristics of compliant centers were compared with those of the other two groups. Most centers were Level I (58%) not-for-profit (67%) teaching hospitals (84%) with a surgical residency (74%). One-third of centers had an accredited fellowship in surgical critical care (37%). Only one center was compliant with all 32 management protocols. Half of the centers were compliant with 14 of 32 protocols studied (range, 4 to 32). Of the 21 trauma center characteristics studied, only two were independently associated with compliant centers: use of physician extenders and daily attending rounds (both P < .0001). Adoption of management guidelines by trauma centers is inconsistent, with wide variations in practices across centers.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) 07/2013; 26(3):256-61.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The non-operative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injuries has gained widespread acceptance. However, there are still many controversies regarding follow-up of these patients. The purpose of this study was to survey active members of the Swiss Society of General and Trauma Surgery (SGAUC) to determine their practices regarding the NOM of isolated splenic injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of active SGAUC members with a written questionnaire was carried out. The questionnaire was designed to elicit information about personal and facility demographics, diagnostic practices, in-hospital management, preferred follow-up imaging and return to activity. RESULTS: Out of 165 SGAUC members 52 (31.5%) completed the survey and 62.8% of all main trauma facilities in Switzerland were covered by the sample. Of the respondents 14 (26.9%) have a protocol in place for treating patients with splenic injuries. For initial imaging in hemodynamically stable patients 82.7% of respondents preferred ultrasonography (US). In cases of suspected splenic injury 19.2% of respondents would abstain from further imaging. In cases of contrast extravasation from the spleen half of the respondents would take no specific action. For low-grade injuries 86.5% chose to admit patients for an average of 1.6 days (range 0-4 days) with a continuously monitored bed. No differences in post-discharge activity restrictions between moderate and high-grade splenic injuries were found. CONCLUSION: The present survey showed considerable practice variation in several important aspects of the NOM of splenic injuries. Not performing further CT scans in patients with suspected splenic injuries and not intervening in cases of a contrast extravasation were the most important discrepancies to the current literature. Standardization of the NOM of splenic injuries may be of great benefit for both surgeons and patients.Der Unfallchirurg 05/2011; · 0.64 Impact Factor