Failure Rate Of Nonoperative Management Research Articles

Failure rates of nonoperative management of low-grade splenic injuries with active extravasation: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study

ObjectivesThere is little evidence guiding the management of grade I–II traumatic splenic injuries with contrast blush (CB). We aimed to analyze the failure rate of nonoperative management (NOM) of grade...

Splenic trauma in the Northern Territory; the impact of an interventional radiology service on splenic trauma management and outcomes

BackgroundThe spleen is the most commonly injured organ in abdominal trauma. Guidelines suggest non-operative management (NOM) is preferred over splenectomy for all haemodynamically stable patients, regardless of injury severity. The availability of splenic angioembolization has been shown to improve outcomes for high-grade splenic injuries by decreasing failure rates of NOM. Trauma incidence and fatality rates are higher in regional and remote areas, and rurality is associated with increased mortality from trauma. Additionally, rural hospitals have difficulty with staff retention and may offer less specialist services compared with urban centres. MethodsA single-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Royal Darwin Hospital, using the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre database. All patients with splenic injury admitted between January 2018 and December 2021 were selected, and divided into control and intervention cohorts, before and after January 1, 2020, correlating with interventional radiology availability. Demographic information included age, gender, mechanism of injury, AIS grade of splenic injury, injury severity score, and shock index. The primary outcome was management of splenic injury and failure rate of NOM. Secondary outcomes included mortality, ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay. ResultsSixty-six patients met inclusion criteria, 32 controls and 34 interventions. Intervention and control groups were statistically similar for baseline demographics, and outcome measures of mortality and ICU length of stay. There was significant difference in the management of splenic injury, either OM or NOM, between intervention and control cohorts among high-grade splenic injury patients (AIS grade 4 and 5). In logistic regression analysis, the absence of interventional radiology was associated with increased OM (OR 12.8, SE 15.7, p = 0.04, 95%CI 1.15–142). ConclusionThe absence of an interventional radiology service was associated with an increased risk of operative management, suggesting interventional radiology helps to prevent splenectomy, improving long term outcomes for splenic trauma patients in regional settings. The effects of availability of IR seen in international publications on decreased mortality and shorter length of stay were not replicated in this study.

Negative Splenic Angiography in Blunt Trauma: Does Embolization Affect Splenic Salvage?

Angioembolization in blunt splenic trauma is used to maximize splenic preservation. Superiority of prophylactic embolization over expectant management in patients with a negative splenic angiography (SA) is debated. We hypothesized that embolization in negative SA would be associated with splenic salvage. Of 83 patients undergoing SA, 30 (36%) had a negative SA. Embolization was performed in 23 (77%). Grade of injury, contrast extravasation (CE) on computed tomography (CT) or embolization were not associated with splenectomy. In 20 patients with either a high-grade injury or CE on CT, 17 (85%) underwent embolization with a failure rate of 24%. In the remaining 10 without high-risk features, 6 underwent embolization with a 0% splenectomy rate. Despite embolization, the failure rate of nonoperative management (NOM) remains significant in those with high-grade injury or CE on CT. A low threshold for early splenectomy after prophylactic embolization is needed.

Experience of non-operative management of blunt liver trauma at Hospital das Clínicas de Uberlândia: 114 cases.

trauma is the leading cause of death for the age group from 1 to 49 years in Brazil. Non-Operative Management (NOM) is the gold standard in trauma centers and does not affect mortality in comparison to operative treatment. medical records were reviewed for 114 patients with blunt liver trauma treated at Hospital das Clínicas of the Federal University of Uberlândia (HC-UFU) from November 2015 to November 2020. the most prevalent gender was masculine (74.5%). The most prevalent age group was 20 to 49 years (65.7%). The majority of admitted patients (60.5%) had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of more than 15. On hospital admission, 30.7% had HR above 100 bpm and 30.70% had SBP below 100mmHg. NOM was implemented in 77.2% of patients, the failure rate was 11.36% and the specific failure rate, excluding complications of associated injuries that resulted in surgery, was 1.75%. One third of deaths were due to severe traumatic brain injury. the failure rate of NOM in this study is similar to the literature reports for liver trauma. The failure rate, excluding complications of associated injuries, is considered low. The recognition of the epidemiological profile of patients admitted at HC-UFU allows multidisciplinary and integrated care with specialized training, as well as the development of institutional protocols, aiming to reduce morbidity and mortality related to hepatic trauma.

Risk Factors for the Failure of Non-operative Management Among Patients Admitted for Colonic Diverticulitis.

Diverticulitis is one of the most diagnosed gastrointestinal diseases in the country, and its incidence has risen over time, especially among younger populations, with increasing attempts at non-operative management. We elected to look at acute diverticular disease from the lens of a failure analysis, where we could estimate the hazard of requiring operative intervention based upon several clinical factors. The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried between 2010 and 2015 for unplanned admissions among adults with a primary diagnosis of diverticulitis. We used a proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard of failed non-operative management from multiple clinical covariates, measured as the number of inpatient days from admission until colonic resection. We also evaluated patients who received percutaneous drainage, to investigate whether this was associated with decreasing the failure rate of non-operative management. A total of 830,993 discharges over the study period, of whom 83,628 (10.1%) underwent operative resection during the hospitalization, and 35,796 (4.3%) patients underwent percutaneous drainage. Half of all operations occurred by hospital day 1. Among patients treated with percutaneous drainage, 11% went on to require operative intervention. The presence of a peritoneal abscess (HR 3.20, P < .01) and sepsis (HR 4.16, P < .01) were the strongest predictors of failing non-operative management. Among the subset of patients with percutaneous drains, the mean time from admission to drain placement was 2.3 days. Overall 10.1% of unplanned admissions for diverticulitis result in inpatient operative resection, most of which occurred on the day of admission. Percutaneous drainage was associated with an 11% operative rate.

Timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation for trauma patients with nonoperatively managed blunt abdominal solid organ injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundBlunt abdominal solid organ injury is common and is often managed nonoperatively. Clinicians must balance risk of both hemorrhage and thrombosis. The optimal timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) initiation in this population is unclear. The objective was to evaluate early (< 48 h) compared to late initiation of VTEp in adult trauma patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injury managed nonoperatively.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 2021. Studies comparing timeframes of VTEp initiation were considered. The primary outcome was failure of nonoperative management (NOM) after VTEp initiation. Secondary outcomes included risk of transfusion, other bleeding complications, risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and mortality.ResultsTen cohort studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 4642 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of failure of NOM among patients receiving early VTEp (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01–3.05, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in risk of transfusion. Odds of DVT were significantly lower in the early group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22–0.59, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82–2.75, p = 0.19). All studies were at serious risk of bias due to confounding.ConclusionsInitiation of VTEp earlier than 48 h following hospitalization is associated with an increased risk of failure of NOM but a decreased risk of DVT. Absolute failure rates of NOM are low. Initiation of VTEp at 48 h may balance the risks of bleeding and VTE.

Non-operative management in blunt splenic trauma: A ten-years-experience at a Level 1 Trauma Center

Trauma;&#x0D; Spleen injuries are among the most frequent trauma-related injuries. The approach for diagnosis and management of Blunt Splenic Injury (BSI) has been considerably shifted towards Non- Operative Management (NOM) in the last few decades. NOM of blunt splenic injuries includes Splenic Angio-Embolization (SAE). Aim of this study was to analyze Pisa Level 1 trauma center (Italy) last 10-years-experience in the management of Blunt Splenic Trauma (BST), and more specifically to evaluate NOM rate and failure. Retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with blunt splenic trauma was done. They were divided into two groups according to the treatment: hemodynamically unstable patients treated operatively (OM group) and patients underwent a nonoperative management (NOM group). The CT scan performed in all NOM group patients. Univariate analysis was performed to identify differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis adjusting for factors with a p value &lt; 0.05 or with clinical relevance was used to identify possible risk factors for NOM failure. 193 consecutive patients with blunt splenic trauma were admitted. Emergency splenectomies were performed in 53 patients (OM group); 140 were managed non-operatively with or without SAE (NOM group). NOM rate in high grade injuries is 57%. Overall NOM failure rate is 9%, and success rate in high grade splenic injuries is 48%; multivariate analysis showed AAST score ≥3 as a risk factor for NOM failure. Non-operative management currently represents the gold standard management for hemodynamically stable patient with blunt splenic trauma even in high grade splenic injuries. AAST ≥3 spleen lesion is a failure risk factor but not a contraindication to for non-operative management.

Splenic artery embolization improves outcomes and decreases the length of stay in hemodynamically stable blunt splenic injuries – A level 1 Australian Trauma centre experience

BackgroundSplenic injuries are the most common visceral injury following blunt abdominal trauma. Increasingly, non-operative management (NOM) and the use of adjunctive splenic angioembolization (ASE) is favoured over operative management (OM) for the hemodynamically stable patient. However, clinical predictors for successful NOM, particularly the role of ASE as an adjunct, remain poorly defined. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASE vs NOM. MethodsA retrospective clinical audit was performed of all patients admitted with blunt splenic injury (BSI) from January 2005 to January 2018 at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The primary outcome was ASE or NOM failure rate. Secondary outcomes were grade of splenic injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), length of hospital stay (LOS), and delayed OM or re-angioembolization rates. ResultsOf 208 patients with BSI, 60 (29%) underwent OM, 54 (26%) ASE, and 94 (45%) NOM only. Patients were predominantly male 165 (79%), with a median age of 33 (IQR 24–51) years. The median ISS was 29 (20–38). There was no difference in the overall success rates for each modality of primary management (48 (89%) ASE vs 77 (82%) NOM, p = 0.374), though patients managed with ASE were older (38 vs 30 years, p = 0.029), had higher grade of splenic injury (grade ≥ IV 42 (78%) vs 8 (8.5%), p<0.001), with increased rates of haemo-peritoneum (46 (85%) vs 51 (54%), p<0.001) and contrast blush (42 (78%) vs 2 (2%), p<0.001). However, for grade III splenic injury, patients managed with ASE had a trend towards better outcome with no failures when compared to the NOM group (0 (0%) vs 8 (35%), p = 0.070) with a significant reduction in LOS (7.2 vs 10.8 days, p = 0.042). Furthermore, the ASE group overall had a significantly shorter LOS compared to the NOM group (10.0 vs 16.0 days, p<0.001). ConclusionASE as an adjunct to NOM significantly reduces the length of stay in BSI patients and is most successful in managing AAST grade III injuries.

Improving splenic conservation rate after trauma by applying a protocol for non-operative management and follow-up: A propensity-score analysis

Background: There are shared guidelines about Non-Operative Management (NOM) of splenic injuries, but some unanswered questions remain. The aim of the present study is to establish the usefulness of a standardized protocol for management and follow-up of NOM patients with splenic injuries. Methods: Multicenter retrospective observational study including patients with major blunt trauma (ISS &gt;15) with splenic injuries managed between January 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 in two Italian I level Trauma Centers: one with a standardized management and follow-up protocol for NOM (Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, BH), and the other without it (ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, PG23H). Comparison between patients’ outcomes were performed and a propensity score model was calculated. Results: 47 patients managed in BH and 49 patients in PG23H were included. In BH, a higher proportion of patients was treated with NOM (72.3 % vs. 53.1 %, p = 0.051). There was no difference in complication rate and mortality in patients treated with NOM in the two hospitals. A borderline significant trend to a higher NOM failure rate in PG23H was found (BH 0.0 % vs. PG23H 11.3 %, p = 0.076). The total splenic conservation rate was significantly higher in BH (BH 72.3 % vs. PG23H 46.9 %, p = 0.011). After the Propensity Score based matching, 72 patients were included and the total splenic conservation rate was significantly higher in BH (BH: 77.8 % vs. PG23H: 50.9 %, p = 0.014). Conclusions: The application of a protocol for in-hospital management and follow-up for NOM of patients with splenic injury could decrease the NOM failure rate and improve splenic conservation rate.

Preinjury warfarin does not cause failure of nonoperative management in patients with blunt hepatic, splenic or renal injuries

BackgroundFor patients sustaining major trauma, preinjury warfarin use may make adequate haemostasis difficult. This study aimed to determine whether preinjury warfarin would result in more haemostatic interventions (transarterial embolization [TAE] or surgeries) and a higher failure rate of nonoperative management for blunt hepatic, splenic or renal injuries. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) from 2003 to 2015. Patients with hepatic, splenic or renal injuries were identified. The primary outcome measurement was the need for invasive procedures to stop bleeding. One-to-two propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection bias. ResultsA total of 37,837 patients were enrolled in the study, and 156 (0.41%) had preinjury warfarin use. With proper 1:2 PSM, patients who received warfarin preinjury were found to require more haemostatic interventions (39.9% vs. 29.1%, p=0.016). The differences between the two study groups were that patients with preinjury warfarin required more TAE than the controls (16.3% vs 8.2%, p = 0.009). No significant increases were found in the need for surgeries (exploratory laparotomy (5.2% vs 3.6%, p = 0.380), hepatorrhaphy (9.2% vs 7.2%, p = 0.447), splenectomy (13.1% vs 13.7%, p = 0.846) or nephrectomy (2.0% vs 0.7%, p = 0.229)). Seven out of 25 patients (28.0%) in the warfarin group required further operations after TAE, which was not significantly different from that in the nonwarfarin group (four out of 25 patients, 16.0%, p = 0.306) ConclusionPreinjury warfarin increases the need for TAE but not surgeries. With proper haemostasis with TAE and resuscitation, nonoperative management can still be applied to patients with preinjury warfarin sustaining blunt hepatic, splenic or renal injuries. Patients with preinjury warfarin had a higher risk for surgery after TAE.

Contemporary Management of Pediatric Blunt Splenic Trauma: A National Trauma Databank Analysis

PurposeTo quantify changes in the management of pediatric patients with isolated splenic injury from 2007 to 2015. Materials and MethodsPatients under 18 years old with registered splenic injury in the National Trauma Data Bank (2007–2015) were identified. Splenic injuries were categorized into 5 management types: nonoperative management (NOM), embolization, splenic repair, splenectomy, or a combination therapy. Linear mixed models accounting for confounding variables were used to examine the direct impact of management on length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) days, and ventilator days. ResultsOf included patients (n = 24,128), 90.3% (n = 21,789), 5.6% (n = 1,361), and 2.7% (n = 640) had NOM, splenectomy, and embolization, respectively. From 2007 to 2015, the rate of embolization increased from 1.5% to 3.5%, and the rate of splenectomy decreased from 6.9% to 4.4%. Combining injury grades, NOM was associated with the shortest LOS (5.1 days), ICU days (1.9 days), and ventilator days (0.5 day). Moreover, splenectomy was associated with longer LOS (10.1 days), ICU days (4.5 days), and ventilator days (2.1 days) than NOM. The average failure rate of NOM was 1.5% (180 failures/12,378 cases). Average embolization failure was 1.3% (6 failures/456 cases). Splenic artery embolization was associated with lower mortality than splenectomy (OR: 0.10, P <.001). No statistically significant difference was observed in mortality between embolization and NOM (OR: 0.96, P = 1.0). ConclusionsIn pediatric splenic injury, NOM is the most utilized and associated with favorable outcomes, most notably in grades III to V pediatric splenic injury. If intervention is needed, embolization is effective and increasingly utilized most significantly in lower grade injuries.

Administering DVT Prophylaxis Sooner Than 48 Hours Does Not Increase Failure of Nonoperative Management of High-Grade (Grades III-V) Splenic Injuries.

Splenic injuries are mostly treated with nonoperative management (NOM) with observation to monitor for continued hemorrhage and holding early chemical DVT prophylaxis to reduce the risk of NOM failure. Eberle et al demonstrated chemoprophylaxis prior to 72 hours didn't increase failure rate of NOM. We chose to extrapolate this finding and compare outcomes in high-grade splenic injuries (HGSI) with chemoprophylaxis before and after 48 hours. From January 2013 to December 2017, 104 patients with HGSI received chemoprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin (UH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) within 72 hours of diagnosis. Of these, 8 patients received chemoprophylaxis within 24 hours, 46 between 24 and 48 hours, and 50 patients between 48 and 72 hours. This population consisted of 70 males and 34 females, with an average age of 40.1 years. The average ISS was 23 and the majority (77%) were grade 3 injuries. We observed 6 failures of NOM: 1 in the <24 hour group, 3 in the 24-48 hour group, and 2 in the 48-72 hour group. There was no statistically significant difference between the <24 hour and >24 groups or between the <48 hour and 48-72 hour groups. A linear regression analysis created a model describing the time to initiation of DVT prophylaxis using age, sex, splenic injury grade, and ISS; the failure rate decreased by 0.00002% for each hour prior to giving DVT prophylaxis, with a P value of .111. We conclude a noninferiority statement that DVT prophylaxis prior to 48 hours does not increase the risk of NOM failure.

Octogenarians with blunt splenic injury: not all geriatrics are the same.

Geriatric trauma patients (GTP) (age ≥ 65 years) with blunt splenic injury (BSI) have up to a 6% failure rate of non-operative management (NOM). GTPs failing NOM have a similar mortality rate compared to GTPs managed successfully with NOM. However, it is unclear if this remains true in octogenarians (aged 80–89 years). We hypothesized that the failure rate for NOM in octogenarians would be similar to their younger geriatric cohort, patients aged 65–79 years; however risk of mortality in octogenarians who fail NOM would be higher than that of octogenarians managed successfully with NOM. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) was queried for patients with BSI. Those undergoing splenectomy within 6 h were excluded to select for patients undergoing NOM. Patients aged 65–79 years (young GTPs) were compared to octogenarians. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine the risk for failed NOM and mortality. From 43,041 BSI patients undergoing NOM, 3660 (8.5%) were aged 65–79 years and 1236 (2.9%) were octogenarians. Both groups had a similar median Injury Severity Score (ISS) (p = 0.10) and failure rate of NOM (6.6% young GTPs vs. 6.8% octogenarians p = 0.82). From those failing NOM, octogenarians had similar units of blood products transfused (p > 0.05) and a higher mortality rate (40.5% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001), compared to young GTPs. Independent risk factors for failing NOM in octogenarians included ≥ 1 unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC) (p = 0.039) within 24 h of admission. Octogenarians who failed NOM had a higher mortality rate compared to octogenarians managed successfully with NOM (40.5% vs 23.6% p = 0.001), which persisted in a multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.25, CI 1.37–3.70, p < 0.001). Late failure of NOM ≥ 24 h (vs. early failure) was not associated with increased risk of mortality (p = 0.88), but ≥ 1 unit of PRBC transfused had higher risk (OR 1.88, CI 1.20–2.95, p = 0.006). Compared to young GTPs with BSI, octogenarians have a similar rate of failed NOM. Octogenarians with BSI who fail NOM have over a twofold higher risk of mortality compared to those managed successfully with NOM. PRBC transfusion increases risk for mortality. Therefore, clinicians should consider failure of NOM earlier in the octogenarian population to mitigate the risk of increased mortality.

Non-operative management of blunt hepatic and splenic injury: a time trend and outcome analysis over a period of 17 years in a large European trauma centre

Background: Despite a widespread shift to non-operative management (NOM) of blunt injuries to the liver and spleen, detailed data from high-volume centres are limited. We aimed to perform a time-trend analysis over 17 years, evaluate the outcome and identify risk factors for failure of NOM in patients with blunt hepatic and splenic injury. Material and Methods: Retrospective review of all emergency trauma patients at the Medical University of Innsbruck from 2000 to 2016. Injury severity, clinical data on admission, operative and non- operative treatment parameters, complications and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Results: In total 731 patients were treated with hepatic and/or splenic injuries between 2000-2016. Among these, 368 had liver injury, 280 splenic injury and 83 combined hepatic/splenic injury. Initial NOM for both groups was performed in 82.6% of patients, of which 1.2% received angiographic embolisation and/or ERCP. All other NOM cases were managed through bed rest without primary intervention. The secondary failure rate of NOM was 3.5%. Reasons for failure of NOM were: haemodynamic instability due to persistent or secondary bleeding, extent of intraabdominal heamatoma and infectious complications.Overall mortality rate was below 5% (p<0.0001), in the NOM group 3.5% (p=0.006), both decreasing significantlyover the study period. Conclusion: NOM is the standard of care for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries and successful in >96% of all patients. This rate was quite constant over 17 years (p=0.515). Our cohort represents one of the largest Western European single centre experience available in the literature.

Non-operative management of blunt hepatic and splenic injury: a time-trend and outcome analysis over a period of 17\xa0years

BackgroundA widespread shift to non-operative management (NOM) for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries has been observed in most centers worldwide. Furthermore, many countries introduced safety measures to systematically reduce severe traffic and leisure sports injuries. This study aims to evaluate the effect of these nationwide implementations on individual patient characteristics and outcomes through a time-trend analysis over 17 years in an Austrian high-volume trauma center.MethodsA retrospective review of all emergency trauma patients admitted to the Medical University of Innsbruck from 2000 to 2016. Injury severity, clinical data on admission, operative and non-operative treatment parameters, complications, and in-hospital mortality were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 731 patients were treated with blunt hepatic and/or splenic injuries. Among these, 368 had a liver injury, 280 splenic injury, and 83 combined hepatic/splenic injury. Initial NOM was performed in 82.6% of all patients (93.5% in hepatic and 71.8% in splenic injuries) with a success rate of 96.7%. The secondary failure rate of NOM was 3.3% and remained consistent over 17 years (p = 0.515). In terms of injury severity, we observed a reduction over time, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 4.8% and 3.5% in the NOM group (decreasing from 7.5 to 1.9% and from 5.6 to 1.3%, respectively). These outcomes confirmed an improved utilization of the NOM approach.ConclusionOur cohort represents one of the largest Central European single-center experiences available in the literature. NOM is the standard of care for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries and successful in > 96% of all patients. This rate was quite constant over 17 years (p = 0.515). Overall, national and regional safety measures resulted in a significantly decreased severity of observed injury patterns and deaths due to blunt hepatic or splenic trauma. Although surgery is nowadays only applied in about one third of splenic injury patients in our center, these numbers might further decrease by intensified application of interventional radiology and modern coagulation management.

Effects of a Patient Activation Tool on Decision Making Between Surgery and Nonoperative Management for Pediatric Appendicitis

Strategies to activate and engage patients and caregivers in shared decision making in the acute care setting may result in improved outcomes. To determine whether a patient activation tool (PAT) can improve decision-making and patient-centered outcomes among pediatric patients and their caregivers who choose between surgery and nonoperative management for their child's appendicitis. This single-blind, randomized clinical trial collected data from a single tertiary children's hospital from March 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016, with 1-year follow-up completed on May 1, 2017. Two hundred of 236 eligible children and adolescents aged 7 to 17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis enrolled with their caregivers. After receiving the randomized clinical intervention, caregivers chose surgery or nonoperative management. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2014, through May 1, 2017. Randomization to a scripted standardized surgical consultation that emphasized patient choice or a scripted standardized surgical consultation plus the PAT (a tablet-based tool that presents each treatment, encourages participation in medical decision making, and aims at alleviating decisional uncertainty). Decisional self-efficacy immediately after treatment decision, health care satisfaction at discharge, and disability days for the child at 1-year follow-up. Among 200 participants (median age, 12 years [interquartile range (IQR), 9-15 years]; 120 [60.0%] male), 98 were randomized to the PAT and 102 to the standardized consultation groups. The percentages choosing nonoperative management were similar (standardized consultation group, 42 of 102 [41.2%]; PAT group, 31 of 98 [31.6%]; P = .19). Immediate decisional self-efficacy was similar in the standardized consultation and PAT groups (median score, 100 [IQR, 97.7-100] vs 100 [IQR, 95.5-100]; P = .03), which was not significant at the planned significance level of P = .02. Total scores on health care satisfaction at discharge were similar (median, 99 [IQR, 94.7-100] vs 98 [IQR, 91.7-100]; P = .27). Disability days at 1-year follow-up were also similar (median, 6 [IQR, 2-11] vs 5 [IQR, 2-15]; P = .67). No difference in the failure rate of nonoperative management at 1 year (13 of 38 [34.2%] vs 11 of 30 [36.7%]; P > .99) or in the rate of complicated appendicitis 30 days after discharge (7 of 68 [10.3%] vs 9 of 71 [12.7%]; P = .79) occurred. In this study, a technology-based PAT did not improve measures of decision making for pediatric patients and caregivers needing to make an urgent treatment decision between surgery and nonoperative management for appendicitis. However, the overall high scores in both groups suggest that pediatric patients and caregivers can process information in the acute care setting and effectively participate in an informed shared decision-making process around the need for surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02110485.

521 Cases of blunt hepatic & splenic injury - multidisciplinary, non-operative management (NOM) in a large Western-Europe Trauma centre

Background: Despite widespread use of NOM for blunt injury to liver and spleen, data from European centres are scarce. We aimed to investigate the outcome of these patients at a large trauma referral centre in Austria and develop a clinical algorithm to detect the risk factors for failure of non-operative management. Methods: Retrospective review based on all emergency patients with admission to Medical University Innsbruck 2006-2016. Injury severity details, clinical, operative and non-operative treatment parameters, morbidity and mortality were evaluated. On these factors a systematic, therapeutic algorithm was created. Results: 521 patients were treated with splenic and/or hepatic injury, 227 had splenic injury, 238 hepatic injury and 56 cases splenic + hepatic trauma. 84.1% underwent initial NOM, of which 2.1% received embolization and/or ERCP. All other NOM cases were managed with bed-rest. The secondary failure rate of NOM was 3.2%. Reasons for failure were: persisting haemorrhage (72%), haematoma (14%) and infections (14%). The rate of patients per year with NOM did not significantly change during the study-period. In-hospital mortality rate was 1.7%. Risk factors for failure of NOM will be presented, as well as a proposed algorithm for management of traumatic liver and spleen injury. Conclusion: NOM is the standard of care for blunt hepatic and splenic injury and successful in >80% of patients. The presented clinical algorithm is primarily guided by clinical parameters and is safe with a low mortality rate <2%.

Nonoperative Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis Among Privately Insured Patients

Health care professionals have shown significant interest in nonoperative management for uncomplicated appendicitis, but long-term population-level data are lacking. To compare the outcomes of nonoperatively managed appendicitis against appendectomy. This national retrospective cohort study used claims data from a private insurance database to compare patients admitted with uncomplicated appendicitis from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, undergoing appendectomy vs nonoperative management. Coarsened exact matching was applied before multivariate analysis to reduce imbalance between groups. Data were analyzed from February 12 through May 1, 2018. Appendectomy (control arm) or nonoperative management (treatment arm). Short-term primary clinical outcomes included emergency department visits, hospital readmission, abdominal abscess, and Clostridium difficile infections. Long-term primary clinical outcomes were small-bowel obstructions, incisional hernias, and appendiceal cancers. Nonoperative management failure was defined by hospital readmission with appendicitis diagnosis and an appendicitis-associated operation or procedure. Secondary outcomes included number of follow-up visits, length and cost of index hospitalization, and total cost of appendicitis-associated care. Covariates included age, sex, region, insurance plan type, admission year, and Charlson comorbidity index. Of 58 329 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (52.7% men; mean [SD] age, 31.9 [16.5] years), 55 709 (95.5%) underwent appendectomy and 2620 (4.5%) underwent nonoperative management. Patients in the nonoperative management group were more likely to have appendicitis-associated readmissions (adjusted odds ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.63-2.77; P < .001) and to develop an abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92; P = .02). Patients in the nonoperative management group required more follow-up visits in the year after index admission (unadjusted mean [SD], 1.6 [6.3] vs 0.3 [1.4] visits; adjusted +1.11 visits; P < .001) and had lower index hospitalization cost (unadjusted mean [SD], $11 502 [$9287] vs $13 551 [$10 160]; adjusted -$2117, P < .001), but total cost of appendicitis care was higher when follow-up care was considered (unadjusted, $14 934 [$31 122] vs $14 186 [$10 889]; adjusted +$785; P = .003). During a mean (SD) of 3.2 (1.7) years of follow-up, failure of nonoperative management occurred in 101 patients (3.9%); median time to recurrence was 42 days (interquartile range, 8-125 days). Among the patients who experienced treatment failure, 44 did so within 30 days. According to results of this study, nonoperative management failure rates were lower than previously reported. Nonoperative management was associated with higher rates of abscess, readmission, and higher overall cost of care. These data suggest that nonoperative management may not be the preferred first-line therapy for all patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Early Surgery in Prone Position for Associated Injuries in Patients Undergoing Non-operative Management for Splenic and Liver Injuries.

In patients undergoing non-operative management (NOM) of blunt splenic and/or liver injuries, no data exist on the safety of same-admission surgery in prone position for concomitant injuries. Retrospective study including adult trauma patients with blunt splenic/liver injuries and attempted NOM from 01/2009 to 06/2015 was conducted. Patient and injury characteristics as well as outcomes [failed (f)NOM, mortality] of patients with/without surgery in prone position were compared ('prone' vs. 'non-prone' group). A total of 244 patients with blunt splenic/liver injury and attempted NOM were included. Forty patients (16.4%) underwent surgery in prone position on median post-injury day 2.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.0]. Surgery in prone position was mostly performed for associated spinal or pelvic injuries. The ISS was significantly higher, and the proportion of patients with high-grade injuries (OIS ≥ 3) was significantly less frequent in the 'prone' group (30.0 ± 14.5 vs. 23.9 ± 13.2, p = 0.009 and 27.5 vs. 53.9%, p = 0.002). In-hospital mortality as well as NOM failure rates were not significantly different between the 'prone' and 'non-prone' group (2.5 vs. 2.9%, p = 1.000; 0.0 vs. 4.4%, p = 0.362). Eleven patients with high-grade injuries were operated in prone position at median day 3 (IQR 3.0). None of these patients failed NOM. However, one patient with a grade IV splenic injury required immediate splenectomy after being operated in right-sided position on the day of admission. In this single-center analysis, surgery in prone position was performed in a substantial number of patients with splenic/liver injuries without increasing the fNOM rate. However, caution should be used in patients with grade IV/V splenic injuries.

Is It safe? Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries in geriatric trauma patients.

Because of increased failure rates of nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injuries (BSI) in the geriatric population, dogma dictated that this management was unacceptable. Recently, there has been an increased use of this treatment strategy in the geriatric population. However, published data assessing the safety of NOM of BSI in this population is conflicting, and well-powered multicenter data are lacking. We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2014 and identified young (age < 65) and geriatric (age ≥ 65) patients with a BSI. Patients who underwent splenectomy within 6 hours of admission were excluded from the analysis. Outcomes were failure of NOM and mortality. We identified 18,917 total patients with a BSI, 2,240 (12%) geriatric patients and 16,677 (88%) young patients. Geriatric patients failed NOM more often than younger patients (6% vs. 4%, p < 0.0001). On logistic regression analysis, Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher was the only independent risk factor associated with failure of NOM in geriatric patients (odds ratio, 2.778; confidence interval, 1.769-4.363; p < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality in geriatric patients who had successful vs. failed NOM (11% vs. 15%; p = 0.22). Independent risk factors for mortality in geriatric patients included admission hypotension, Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less, and cardiac disease. However, failure of NOM was not independently associated with mortality (odds ratio, 1.429; confidence interval, 0.776-2.625; p = 0.25). Compared with younger patients, geriatric patients had a higher but comparable rate of failed NOM of BSI, and failure rates are lower than previously reported. Failure of NOM in geriatric patients is not an independent risk factor for mortality. Based on our results, NOM of BSI in geriatric patients is safe. Therapeutic, level IV.