Display options
Share it on

Curr Trauma Rep. 2017;3(1):32-37. doi: 10.1007/s40719-017-0074-2. Epub 2017 Feb 09.

Evidence-Based Management and Controversies in Blunt Splenic Trauma.

Current trauma reports

D C Olthof, C H van der Vlies, J C Goslings

Affiliations

  1. Trauma Unit, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  2. Division of Trauma Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, 3079 DZ Rotterdam, Netherlands.

PMID: 28303214 PMCID: PMC5332509 DOI: 10.1007/s40719-017-0074-2

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The study aims to describe the evidence-based management and controversies in blunt splenic trauma.

RECENT FINDINGS: A shift from operative management to non-operative management (NOM) has occurred over the past decades where NOM has now become the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) is generally believed to increase the success rate of NOM. Not all the available evidence is that optimistic about SAE however. A morbidity specifically related to SAE of up to 47% has been reported. Although high-grade splenic injury is a prognostic factor for failure of NOM, an American research group has published a study in which NOM is performed in over half of haemodynamically stable patients with grade IV or V splenic injury without leading to an increased morbidity (in terms of complications) or mortality. Another area of current investigation in the literature is the exact indication for SAE. Although the generally accepted indication is the presence of vascular injury, a topic of current investigation is whether there might be a role for pre-emptive embolisation in patients with high-grade splenic injury. On the other hand, evidence is also emerging that not all blushes require an intervention (small blushes <1 or 1.5 cm do not). Lastly, the available evidence shows that splenic function is preserved after embolisation, and therefore, the routine administration of vaccinations seems not to be necessary. There might be a difference between proximal and distal embolisations; however, with regard to splenic function, in favour of distal embolisation.

SUMMARY: Nowadays, NOM is the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. The available evidence (although with a relatively small number of patients) shows that splenic function is preserved after NOM, a major advantage compared to splenectomy. SAE is used as an adjunct to observation in order to increase the success rate of NOM. Operative management should be applied in case of haemodynamic instability or if associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgical treatment are present. Patient selection (which patient can be safely treated non-operatively, does every blush needs to be embolised?, which patients might be better off with direct operative intervention given the patient and injury characteristics) is an ongoing subject of further research. Future studies should also focus on long-term outcomes of patients treated with embolisation (e.g. total number of lifetime infectious episodes requiring antibiotic treatment or hospital admission, quality of life).

Keywords: Blunt abdominal trauma; Embolisation; Non-operative management; Splenic function; Splenic injury

References

  1. J Trauma. 2000 Aug;49(2):177-87; discussion 187-9 - PubMed
  2. J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Aug;223(2):249-58 - PubMed
  3. World J Surg. 2016 May;40(5):1264-71 - PubMed
  4. J Trauma. 2008 Mar;64(3):656-63; discussion 663-5 - PubMed
  5. Br J Surg. 1991 Sep;78(9):1031-8 - PubMed
  6. Sports Health. 2014 May;6(3):239-45 - PubMed
  7. Ann Surg. 2014 Jul;260(1):13-21 - PubMed
  8. Crit Care Med. 1999 Apr;27(4):836-42 - PubMed
  9. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015 Oct;38(5):1143-51 - PubMed
  10. Am Surg. 2001 Jan;67(1):22-5 - PubMed
  11. J Trauma. 2007 Jun;62(6):1481-6 - PubMed
  12. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Sep;79(3):335-42 - PubMed
  13. J Trauma. 2006 May;60(5):1083-6 - PubMed
  14. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 May;80(5):783-6 - PubMed
  15. J Trauma. 2010 Nov;69(5):1126-30; discussion 1130-1 - PubMed
  16. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Sep;73(3):580-4; discussion 584-6 - PubMed
  17. Am J Surg. 2005 Mar;189(3):335-9 - PubMed
  18. Ann Surg. 1998 May;227(5):708-17; discussion 717-9 - PubMed
  19. Surgery. 2009 Oct;146(4):787-91; discussion 791-3 - PubMed
  20. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014 Nov;21(11):1500-4 - PubMed
  21. Surgery. 2007 Feb;141(2):229-38 - PubMed
  22. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Jun;74(6):1567-74 - PubMed
  23. J Trauma. 2008 Apr;64(4):1085-91; discussion 1091-2 - PubMed
  24. BMC Emerg Med. 2008 Aug 22;8:10 - PubMed
  25. J Am Coll Surg. 2005 May;200(5):648-69 - PubMed
  26. J Trauma. 2009 Sep;67(3):557-63; discussion 563-4 - PubMed
  27. J Visc Surg. 2015 Apr;152(2):85-91 - PubMed
  28. Injury. 2012 Sep;43(9):1337-46 - PubMed
  29. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Feb;35(1):76-81 - PubMed
  30. Injury. 2012 Jan;43(1):62-6 - PubMed
  31. J Trauma. 2004 Nov;57(5):1072-81 - PubMed
  32. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Jun;76(6):1349-53 - PubMed
  33. Injury. 2014 Jan;45(1):95-100 - PubMed
  34. World J Surg. 2001 Nov;25(11):1405-7 - PubMed
  35. Arch Surg. 2000 Jun;135(6):674-9; discussion 679-81 - PubMed
  36. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Nov;73(5):1208-12 - PubMed
  37. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Feb;74(2):546-57 - PubMed

Publication Types