Management Of Blunt Liver Injury Research Articles

An Unusual Recurrent Bile Leak Following High Grade Liver Trauma

Non-operative management of blunt liver injury has been demonstrated as a safe and effective treatment for most grades of injury. As the severity of liver injury increases, so does the risk of complications. A 21-year-old male was brought to the trauma center following a high speed motorbike accident. He underwent a laparotomy and angioembolization for a Grade 4 liver injury. A biloma was diagnosed on Day 18 post injury, and he underwent Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and biliary stenting which were unsuccessful. There were 2 re-admissions for infected perihepatic collections. In this case, an Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography was not a helpful procedure due to a disconnected liver segment, and morbidity occurred due to instrumentation of the biliary tree (the likely cause of infected biloma). Hepatic resection should be considered for patients who fail non-operative management. Further assessment of efficacy using a larger dataset for analysis is required.

Study of outcomes in patients with conserved blunt liver and splenic injuries

Background: Blunt abdominal injuries in the modern day are common due to vehicular accidents. Young males are more commonly involved and liver and spleen are the commonest organs injured. During the last century, the management of blunt force trauma has changed from observation and expectant management in the early part of the 1900s to operative intervention for all injuries, to the current practice of selective operative and nonoperative management.Methods: We studied outcomes of conservatively managed liver and splenic injuries in 51 patients who presented to a tertiary referral center over a period of 1 year. Patient demographics and outcomes were studied.Results: Males in the age group of 16-30 years were commonly involved. Liver was the commonest organ injured. Both liver and spleen were injured together only in 3 patients. One patient of liver injury was subjected to delayed surgery and 2 patients of splenic injury failed conservative management. Thus, the success rate of conservative management of blunt liver injuries was 96.87% and in splenic injuries was 90.91%.Conclusions: Outcome of conservative management of blunt liver and splenic injuries is extremely good, especially in patients who maintained hemodynamic stability. Nonoperative management of blunt liver splenic injuries should be the treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable patients with any grades of injuries.

Nonoperative management of blunt liver injury in hemodynamically stable versus unstable patients: a retrospective study.

The success rate of nonoperative management (NOM) of traumatic liver injury is approximately 90%. Although NOM has become the standard treatment when patients' vital signs are stable, open surgical hemostasis is often selected when these signs are unstable. At our hospital, we extensively use NOM along with transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) to treat patients with severe abdominal trauma, as per our original protocol. We also apply NOM for severe liver injury with unstable hemodynamics. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the efficacy of NOM for blunt liver injury in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients. We retrospectively examined 23 patients with severe liver injuries who underwent NOM after visiting our emergency outpatient department between 2007 and 2017. Patients were assigned to either the stable group with stable hemodynamics or the unstable group with unstable hemodynamics. The stable group comprised 13 patients, and the unstable group comprised 10 patients. All patients underwent TAE. While all patients in the stable group were discharged alive, one patient in the unstable group died during the hospital stay. The response rate to NOM was 90%, and no patient switched from NOM to open surgery. A higher rate of complications with a significantly longer average stay in the intensive care unit was observed in the unstable group. Even in the unstable group, NOM with TAE performed under careful general management facilitated avoidance of open surgery and provided high survival rates.

Can we refine the management of blunt liver trauma?

To describe the management of blunt liver injury and to study the potential relation between delayed complications, type of trauma mechanisms and liver lesions. This is a retrospective single center study including 116 consecutive patients admitted with blunt liver injury between 2007 and 2015. Initial CT-scan identified an active bleeding in 33 (28%) patients. AAST (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma) grade was 1 to 3 in 82 (71%) patients and equal to 5 in 15 (13%) patients. Eighty (69%) patients had NOM, with a success rate of 96%. Other abdominal organ lesions were associated to invasive initial management. A follow-up CT-scan was useful to detect hepatic and extra-hepatic complications (46 complications in 80 patients), even without clinical or biological abnormalities. Subsequent hepatic complications such as bleeding, pseudo aneurysms, biloma and biliary peritonitis developed in 15 patients and were associated with the severity of blunt liver injury according to AAST classification (3.7±1.0 vs. 3.0±1.1, P=0.010). Total biliary complications occurred in 13 patients and were significantly more frequently observed in patients with injury of central segments 1, 4 and 9 (69% vs. 36%, P=0.033). Non-operative management is possible in most blunt liver injury with a success rate of 96%. A systematic CT-scan should be advocated during follow-up, especially when AAST grade is equal or superior to 3. Biliary complications should be suspected when lesions involve segments 1, 4 and 9.

Predictors of failure in non-operative management of blunt liver trauma

Background: Liver is the most injured organ in abdominal trauma. Nonoperative treatment (NOM) is increasingly being adopted as the initial management strategy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of operative and conservative management of patients with blunt liver injury treated in a single institution.Methods: A retrospective study, analyzing patients admitted from 2011-2015 with the diagnosis of liver trauma, was performed. The patients were classified according to the intention to treatment: Group I, NOM; Group II, operative management and Group III, fail in NOM management. We analyzed demographic data, injury classification, associated injuries, transfusions, shock, liver function test, lactate level, and mortality rates.Results: Over the five years period, 68 patients were recorded, 45 were successful (S-NOM) and 18 were failed (F-NOM). No differences in age, sex or initial hemodynamics were found between S-NOM and F-NOM. The F-NOM patients were more seriously injured, more acidotic, required transfusion, had more fluid collection at FAST, had worse transaminase level and higher mortality rate. Grade of liver injuries was the independent risk factor of failure in nonoperating management of blunt liver trauma with the cut-off point is 3.66.Conclusions: Non-operative management of blunt liver injuries is successful in some cases. Patients with more severe injury tend to have an operation. High-grade blunt liver injuries always present with a worse condition and require an operation.

Operative and Nonoperative Management of Blunt Liver Injuries

The purpose of this review is to discuss the indications for operative and nonoperative management in patients with blunt liver injuries. Over the past several years, research has begun to show that nonoperative management in blunt liver injuries is feasible and has favorable outcomes over immediate operations in patients who are hemodynamically stable. This includes high-grade injuries who were previously taken to the operating room, in the absence of peritoneal signs or instability, for washout and packing. This trend in management is likely multifactorial and includes improved quality of critical care medicine, advances in imaging to accurately define the injury and trend changes, and other interventional techniques such as embolization, percutaneous drainage and endoscopy. The mainstay of treatment for hemodynamically unstable patients remains operative. This article will provide current recommendations for operative and nonoperative management strategies in patients with blunt liver injuries, taking into account initial clinical picture and resources available.

Selective Non Operative Management of Blunt Liver Trauma: Is It Still a Challenge?

The non-therapeutic laparotomy in managing cases with blunt liver injuries is not without risks, so selective non-operative treatment in stable patients was tried in many centers and has become the standard of care of these patients The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of selective non-operative management of blunt liver injury in our institution <i>Patients and Methods:</i> This prospective study was conducted on 40 patients with blunt liver injury who met our inclusion criteria admitted to Tanta University Hospital during the period from January 2012 to January 2014. All patients were treated by selective non-operative treatment (repeated clinical examination, serial U/S and CT study and follow up) <i>Results:</i> The age of our patients ranged from 26 to 40 years with a mean (±SD) of 31.3 ± 3.77 years. 36 patients were males (90%), while 4 patients (10%), were female. Total length of stay was ranged from 2 days to 15 days with a mean (±SD) of 5.8 ± 3.27 days as regards all cases. Intensive care unit stay was in 2 cases (5%) which FNOM with mean (±SD) of 1.5 ± 0.7 days. CT study was done in all cases (100%), 2 cases (5%) was operated after 6 hours of conservatism in ICU due to hemodynamic instability after initial assessment of stability. <i>Conclusions:</i> Selective non operative management of blunt liver injury in bunt abdominal trauma is safe, efficient, and cost-effective in the appropriate clinical setting and can lead to fewer unnecessary laparotomies in patients with liver injury. Proper patient selection, resources that permit close observation, and frequent abdominal examinations are paramount in obtaining the best results.

The Effect of Cirrhosis on the Risk for Failure of Nonoperative Management of Blunt Liver Injuries: Barmparas G, Cooper Z, Ley EJ, et al. Surgery. 2015;158:1676-85.

The Effect of Cirrhosis on the Risk for Failure of Nonoperative Management of Blunt Liver Injuries: Barmparas G, Cooper Z, Ley EJ, et al. Surgery. 2015;158:1676-85.

The effect of cirrhosis on the risk for failure of nonoperative management of blunt liver injuries

The purpose of this study was to delineate the association between cirrhosis and failure of nonoperative management (F-NOM) after blunt liver trauma. We carried out a review of the National Trauma Databank from 2007 to 2011 including patients ≥ 16 years old admitted after a blunt injury. Propensity score was used to match each cirrhotic to 3 noncirrhotic patients. Primary outcome was F-NOM (liver procedure >2 hours after admission and/or operative intervention directed at the liver after angiography). A total of 57 cirrhotic patients who met inclusion criteria were matched with 171 noncirrhotic patients. Splenic injury was present in 41% (35% vs 43%; P = .31) and 28% had a high-grade liver injury III/VI/V (26% vs 29%; P = .73). The majority of patients in both groups were selected for a trial of NOM (77% vs 85%; P = .15). There was no difference in the rate of F-NOM between the 2 groups (14% vs 14%; P = 1.00), even for high-grade injuries (13% vs 20%; P = .72). Cirrhotic patients had a greater overall mortality (28% vs 7%; P < .01), especially if they required a laparotomy (58% vs 17%; P < .01) or if they failed NOM (50% vs 4%; P < .01). Cirrhosis has no effect on the selection of patients with blunt liver injuries for a trial of nonoperative management and does not seem to be associated with a greater risk for failure of nonoperative management within the constraints of our study. Nonoperative management in this population is highly successful and failure is rarely related directly to the liver injury itself. Failure of non-operative management increases the already high mortality risk in this population.

Management of blunt liver injury: what is new?

Nonoperative management has become the surgical treatment of choice in the hemodynamically stable patient with blunt hepatic trauma. The increased use and success of nonoperative management have been facilitated by the development of increasingly higher resolution computed tomography imaging, improved management of physiology and resuscitation (damage control), and routine availability of interventional procedures such as angiography and embolization, image-guided percutaneous drainage, and endoscopy. On the other hand, recognition of the patient who should proceed to immediate laparotomy is of utmost importance. A systematic and logical approach to the control of hemorrhage is required in the operating room. Thorough knowledge of the anatomy and surgical techniques, such as perihepatic packing, effective Pringle maneuver, hepatic mobilization, infrahepatic and suprahepatic control of the IVC, and stapled hepatectomy, is essential.

Start of Polytrauma Management in University Hospital: First Experience with Liver Trauma

Summary Introduction. Trauma is a leading cause of death, particularly among young patients. Spleen is the most commonly damaged organ in blunt abdominal trauma and liver injury is the main cause of death. Aim of the study. Review of the literature and recent clinical experience in the management of blunt liver injuries in the Riga East clinical university hospital. Materials and methods. Three-year experience in the management of liver traumatic rupture was retrospectively and prospectively analysed. The study included 64 patients over 15 years of age with blunt hepatic injuries. Exclusion criteria were patients with life-incompatible haemorrhagic shock. The Statistical analysis of the data was performed by median and mean of the Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS 22 version. Results. A total of 64 patients were treated in our institution during the period from November 2010 till November 2013. Isolated liver injuries were diagnosed in 49 cases, combined liver and spleen injuries in 15 cases. Most commonly mechanism ofinjury were road traffic accidents, falls and low energy blunt traumas (criminal beaten, sports injuries);19 patients underwent laparotomy for haemostasis while nonoperative management was used in 45 patients. Haemodynamic stability of the patient and CT confirmed liver injury were the main criteria for nonoperative management. One patient died atthe time of laparotomy from injuries not compatible with life – severe head injury with basal skull fracture, aortic arc rupture, flail chest and liver and spleen injury. Conclusions. Conservative management of liver trauma is justified in haemodynamically(HD) stable patients after thorough risk assessment and computed tomography (CT) based injury grading in centres with sufficient expertise and medical resources.

Non‐operative management of blunt liver injury: a new protocol for selected hemodynamically unstable patients under hypotensive resuscitation

The objective of this study was to evaluate our new protocol for performing non-operative management for selected unstable patients under hypotensive resuscitation using improved diagnostic imaging techniques. This retrospective study included 77 consecutive patients with blunt liver injury. They were divided into two groups: those treated before and those treated after the revision. Under the new protocol, we attempted to manage the patients non-operatively, usually with angioembolization, including those whose shock improved with fluid resuscitation and continuous loading, permitting the maintenance of a target systolic blood pressure of 80 mmHg. The outcomes of the two groups were evaluated and compared. While comparing the groups, although there was no change in the liver-related morbidity and mortality rates, the urgent and overall laparotomy rates and transfusion requirements in 24 h significantly decreased after the protocol revision. While comparing the subgroups of high-grade injury (AAST Grades 3-5), the overall laparotomy rates and transfusion requirements in 24 h significantly decreased after the protocol revision. All the selected unstable patients were successfully managed non-operatively after the protocol revision. The decrease in laparotomy rates and transfusion requirements confirmed the feasibility of our new protocol for these selected patients.

Observation for Nonoperative Management of Blunt Liver Injuries: How Long Is Long Enough?

Nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt liver injury is the standard of care in hemodynamically stable patients. However, there are no data regarding the optimum length of inpatient observation. The purpose of this study is to review NOM guidelines for patient safety and optimal length of stay (LOS). A retrospective review of the trauma registry at a Level I trauma center was performed to identify all patients admitted with blunt liver injuries. Guidelines for length of observation were developed, such that patients were discharged with normal physical examination and stable hemoglobin, regardless of grade of injury. Data collected include injury severity score, grade of liver injury, LOS, success rate of NOM, time to failure of NOM, and reason for failure of NOM. From August 2002 to March 2009, 591 patients were admitted for NOM of blunt liver injuries. Of these, 35 patients (6%) failed NOM; 19 failed secondary to hemorrhage, mostly from associated injuries. Average LOS for patients with isolated liver injuries was 2.2 days. Only one patient failed NOM as an outpatient. There were no adverse outcomes from these NOM guidelines. The length of observation should be based solely on clinical criteria. Patients with liver injuries may be safely discharged home in the presence of a normal abdominal examination and stable hemoglobin, regardless of the grade of injury. This guideline is safe and reduces LOS without increasing morbidity or mortality.

Management of motorcycle accident–related blunt hepatic injury—a different strategy

Background In motorcycle accidents, especially in an urban area with lightweight motorcycles, the belly of the motorcyclist is not protected, and this makes this type of trauma a cause of blunt hepatic injuries. This study investigated the effect and safety of using nonoperative management and selective early angioembolization to treat patients with blunt liver injuries as a result of motorcycle accident. Methods This was a retrospective study of the hepatic injuries sustained by motorcyclists involved in traffic accidents. We collected patient demographic information, the severity of total injuries, grade of liver injury, associated concomitant injuries, management scheme, and outcome of patients from 2006 to 2007. These patients were treated nonoperatively with selective early angioembolization and close monitoring in our intensive care unit (ICU). Results We reviewed the cases of 266 patients sustaining blunt abdominal injuries. Thirty-four patients (12.78%) had hepatic injuries. All survived with no obvious morbidity, and no further invasive procedures were performed after admission to ICU. There was no significant association between grade of injury and ICU length of stay ( P = .073), but there was a significant association between grade and in-patient length of stay on our regular ward ( P = .001). Conclusion Most patients with hepatic injury caused by motorcycle accidents can be treated safely by nonoperative management. Early selective angioembolization improved the success of nonoperative management of blunt liver injury without other surgical intervention. Routine follow-up with computed axial tomography scans and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography may not be necessary because complications associated with hepatic injuries were rare.

Povrede jetre - nasa iskustva u tretmanu

Trauma is one of todays most serious and expensive health care problems, and it is the most common cause of mortality in young population. Non-operative tretment is standard strategi for menagment of blunt liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patiens in last decade. Retrospective study included patiens with liver trauma, admitted in the period december 1995 - december 2005, in total 476. 392 of 476 patients presenting with liver trauma had blunt and only 84 had penetrating injury. Isolated liver injury was identified in 27.5% and 72.5% had associated injuries. Average ISS value was 24.06 (SD = 14.26).During the operation liver injury in patients was classified according to Moor. In 2% critical patients, due to hemodynamic unstability we performed "damage control surgery". Out of 476 patients 8.7% were successfully managet, 6.1% died as "mors in tabula" or during first 24 hours and 6.9% died during hospitalization. Higher proportion of nonoopertively treated is among patients with ISS less thanand those with injuries grade I end II.

Concomitant injuries are an important determinant of outcome of high-grade blunt hepatic trauma

Little is known about the clinical importance of concomitant injuries in polytraumatized patients with high-grade blunt liver injury. A retrospective single-centre study was performed to investigate the safety of non-operative management of liver injury and the impact of concomitant intra- and extra-abdominal injuries on clinical outcome. Some 183 patients with blunt liver injury were admitted to Berne University Hospital, Switzerland, between January 2000 and December 2006. Grade 3-5 injuries were considered to be high grade. Immediate laparotomy was required by 35 patients (19.1 per cent), owing to extrahepatic intra-abdominal injury (splenic and vascular injuries, perforations) in 21 cases. The mortality rate was 16.9 per cent; 22 of the 31 deaths were due to concomitant lesions. Of 81 patients with high-grade liver injury, 63 (78 per cent) were managed without surgery; liver-related and extra-abdominal complication rates in these patients were 11 and 17 per cent respectively. Grades 4 and 5 liver injury were associated with hepatic-related and extra-abdominal complications. Concomitant injuries are a major determinant of outcome in patients with blunt hepatic injury and should be given high priority by trauma surgeons. An algorithm for the management of blunt liver injury is proposed.

Non-operative management of blunt liver injuries

Over a 10-year period 281 patients with liver injuries following blunt abdominal trauma were seen at Westmead Hospital. A decision to treat the liver injury without an operation was made in 55 (20 per cent) of the 281 patients. Two of these 55 patients required a subsequent laparotomy, one for continued bleeding and one for a bile leak. No patient died from a missed intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal injury or from concealed haemorrhage. These patients were compared with 181 patients with liver injuries who were operated on. The two groups of patients could be distinguished in terms of their clinical status on arrival at the hospital, the magnitude of their injury and the sequelae of the injury. Non-operative management proved a safe alternative to an operation in appropriate patients, but a laparotomy to exclude unsuspected intra-abdominal injuries is associated with little significant morbidity and offers some reassurance in managing patients with multiple injuries.

Postoperative problems and management after hepatic resection for blunt injury to the liver.

The postoperative problems and management of 8 patients following right hepatic lobectomy for blunt liver injury are discussed. Multiple injury and in particular chest injury are of importance. Respiratory distress may be insidious in onset and must be anticipated. Most patients require at least temporary positive pressure ventilation. Liver regeneration is rapid and histological evidence of regenerative hyperplasia is present within 3 days of injury. Hypoglycaemia of a degree sufficient to threaten life may occur postoperatively, particularly in the first 48 hours. Jaundice may be a worrying postoperative feature, but the use of T-tube drainage after hepatic lobectomy will enable any possible extrahepatic obstruction to be excluded. Hypoproteinaemia and hypo-albuminaemia occur in the immediate postoperative period, and recovery rapidly follows the peak period of regenerative activity of the liver. Normal levels are regained by the fourth to sixth postoperative weeks. Prophylactic antibiotics have no place in the postoperative management of blunt liver injury. Haemorrhagic diathesis is common after hepatic resection and is of a complex nature. Intravascular coagulation may occur and factor V deficiency is common. The mainstay of treatment is transfusion of fresh blood.

Routine Follow-Up Imaging Is Unnecessary in the Management of Blunt Hepatic Injury

Nonoperative management of hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic injuries has become the standard of care over the past decade. However, controversy regarding the role of in-hospital follow-up computed tomographic (CT) scans as a part of this nonoperative management scheme is ongoing. Although many institutions, including our own, have advocated routine in-hospital follow-up scans, others have suggested a more selective policy. Over time, we have perceived a low yield from follow-up studies. The hypothesis for this study is that routine follow-up imaging of asymptomatic patients is unnecessary. All patients selected for nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury were evaluated for utility of follow-up CT scans over a 4-year period. There were 530 stable patients with hepatic injury on admission CT scans in which follow-up scans were obtained within a week of admission. All injuries were classified according to the revised American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale: 102 (19.2%) grade I, 181 (34.1%) grade II, 158 (29.8%) grade III, 74 (13.9%) grade IV, and 15 (2.8%) grade V. Follow-up scans showed that most injuries were either unchanged (51%) or improved (34.7%). Only three patients underwent intervention based on their follow-up scans: two patients had arteriography (one with therapeutic embolization) and one had percutaneous drainage. Each of those patients had clinical signs or symptoms that were indicative of ongoing hepatic abnormality. These data demonstrate that, regardless of injury grade, routine in-hospital follow-up scans are not indicated as part of the nonoperative management of blunt liver injuries. Follow-up scans are indicated for patients who develop signs or symptoms suggestive of hepatic abnormality.

Liver injuries in children: The role of selective non-operative management

Introduction This review article on the management of blunt liver injury in children is based on the authors’ experience of 311 patients over a 22-year period. Material and methods All children presenting to our institution with confirmed blunt liver trauma were studied retrospectively. Hospital folders of 311 patients were analysed. Information was gathered about the clinical presentation, associated injuries, grade of injury, transfusion requirements and haemodynamic stability to examine factors influencing outcome. Results The age of patients ranged between 3 weeks and 12 years (mean of 7 years). Injuries as a result of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) were the most common (268; 232 pedestrian and 36 passenger), other causes were falls (26) assaults or child abuse(15), bicycle handle bar injury (2). One hundred and thirty-six patients sustained an isolated hepatic injury and 175 had multiple injuries. Associated injuries included 147 head injuries, 131 fractures, 66 thoracic and 143 intra-abdominal (74 spleen, 45 renal, 4 pancreatic and 4 hollow viscus). Two patients died soon after arrival, 21 underwent laparotomy, 13 of which were liver related, while 288 were treated non-operatively. One hundred and six patients required blood transfusion (mean of 21.3 ml/kg); 30% of the nonoperative group and 100% of the operative group. There were three fatalities from the operative group (1% total mortality), one secondary to a severe, head injury, one liver haemorrhage and one from multi-organ failure Discussion The vast majority (93%) was successfully treated non-operatively with only 4% coming to liver related laparotomy, complications were lower, transfusions less and the in-hospital occupancy was shorter. Complication rate was 8% and mortality was 1%. Conclusion We confirm the success selective non-operative management of blunt liver trauma as adopted by this institution 20 years ago. It is now proven treatment in an appropriate centre. However, the challenge is to identify the severely injured child early and institute aggressive resuscitation and expedite laparotomy when indicated.