Management Of Blunt Splenic Trauma Research Articles

Contemporary Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma in Adults: An Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Registry

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies for blunt splenic injuries in adult patients. MethodsPatients 18 years and older with blunt splenic injuries registered via the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) were identified. Management strategies initiated within 24 hours of hospital presentation were classified as watchful waiting, embolization, surgery, or combination therapy. Patients were stratified by injury grade. Linear models estimated each strategy’s effect on hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and mortality. ResultsOf 81,033 included patients, 86.3%, 10.9%, 2.5%, and 0.3% of patients received watchful waiting, surgery, embolization, and combination therapy, respectively. Among patients with low-grade injuries and compared with surgery, embolization was associated with shorter hospital LOS (9.4 days, Q < .001, Cohen’s d = .30) and ICU LOS (5.0 days, Q < .001, Cohen’s d = .44). Among patients with high-grade injuries and compared with surgery, embolization was associated with shorter hospital LOS (8.7 days, Q < .001, Cohen’s d = .12) and ICU LOS (4.5 days, Q < .001, Cohen’s d = .23). Among patients with low- and high-grade injuries, the odds ratios for in-hospital mortality associated with surgery compared with embolization were 4.02 (Q < .001) and 4.38 (Q < .001), respectively. ConclusionsAmong patients presenting with blunt splenic injuries and compared with surgery, embolization was associated with shorter hospital LOS, shorter ICU LOS, and lower risk for mortality.

A Rare Case of Splenocolonic Fistula Presenting as Rectal Bleeding after Non-Operative Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma and Review of the Literature

A Rare Case of Splenocolonic Fistula Presenting as Rectal Bleeding after Non-Operative Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma and Review of the Literature

Pediatric Blunt Splenic Trauma: Disparities in Management and Outcomes

IntroductionWhile nonoperative management has become widely accepted, whether nonoperative management of blunt splenic trauma is standardized across pediatric trauma centers and different racial groups warrants further investigation. Using the National Trauma Database, the purpose of this study was to quantify the differences in the management of pediatric splenic trauma across different pediatric trauma centers, with respect to injury severity, race, ethnicity, and insurance. MethodsPatients under 20 y of age with blunt splenic trauma reported to the 2018 and 2019 National Trauma Data Bank were identified. Primary outcomes were splenectomy, embolization, transfusion, mortality, injury severity score (ISS), and length of hospital stay (LOS) and length of intensive care unit stay. Continuous data and categorical data were analyzed using ANOVA and Chi-squared test, respectively. Nearest 1:1 neighbor matching was performed between minority patients and White patients. P < 0.05 for all comparative analyses was considered statistically significant. ResultsOf the total cohort (n = 1919), 70.3% identified as White, while 21.6% identified as Black or Hispanic. The mortality rate was 0.3%. Among different race categories, the frequency of spleen embolization (P = 0.99), splenectomy (P = 0.99), blood transfusion (P = 1), and mortality (P = 1), were not significantly different. After controlling for ISS and age with propensity score matching, the mean hospital LOS remained significantly higher in minority patients, with a mean of 5.44 d compared to 4.72 d (P = 0.05). Mean length of intensive care unit stay was not significantly different after propensity matching, with a mean of 1.79 d and 1.56 spent in the ICU for minority and White patients respectively (P = 0.17). While propensity score matching preserved statistical significance, the ISS for the minority group remained 1.12 times higher than the ISS of the Caucasian group. There was no statistically significant difference among races with respect to different payment methods and insurance status, although Black and Hispanic patients were proportionally underinsured. ConclusionsWhile minority patients had a relatively higher number of operative interventions and longer hospital and ICU stays, after propensity score matching, mean ISS remained higher in the minority group. Our findings suggest that injury severity is likely to influence the difference in LOS between the two groups. Furthermore, our data highlight how nonoperative management is not standardized across pediatric trauma centers.

Impact of Treatment Modalities on Discharge Disposition in Blunt Splenic Injuries.

Management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved over several decades, trending towards nonoperative management and splenic artery embolization. Extensive research has been conducted regarding the management of blunt splenic injuries, but there is little data on the association of treatment modality with discharge disposition. This is an observational retrospective study conducted at a level-one trauma center with blunt splenic trauma patients of age ≥18 years between January 2010 and December 2021. The primary outcome of unfavorable discharge was defined as discharge to an acute care facility, intermediate care facility, long-term care facility, rehabilitation (inpatient) facility, or skilled nursing facility. Five hundred seventy-nine patients were included in the analysis, with 108 (18.7%) in the unfavorable group and 471 (81.3%) in the favorable group. Most patients were managed nonoperatively (69.3%), followed by splenectomy (25.0%) and embolization (5.7%). Due to the low number of embolizations performed during the study period, treatment modalities were grouped into two broad categories: intervention (embolization and splenectomies) and nonintervention. The treatment modality was found to have no significant impact on unfavorable discharge. Independent risk factors for unfavorable discharge included age >55 years, injury severity score (ISS) >15, hospital-acquired pneumonia, and in-hospital complications of sepsis. This study provides an understanding of specific demographic and clinical factors that may predispose blunt splenic injury trauma patients to an unfavorable discharge. Providers may apply these data to identify at-risk patients and subsequently adapt the care they provide in an effort to prevent the development of in-hospital pneumonia and sepsis.

Comparison between level 1 and level 2 trauma centers for the management of splenic blunt trauma

IntroductionThe management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved in the last years, from mainly operative approach to the non-operative management (NOM). The aim of this study is to investigate whether trauma center (TC) designation (level 1 and level 2) affects blunt splenic trauma management. MethodsA retrospective analysis of blunt trauma patients with splenic injury admitted to 2 Italian TCs, Niguarda (level 1) and San Carlo Borromeo (level 2), was performed, receiving either NOM or emergency surgical treatment, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Univariate comparison was performed between the two centers, and multivariate analysis was carried out to find predictive factors associated with NOM and splenectomy. Results181 patients were included in the study, 134 from level 1 and 47 from level 2 TCs. The splenectomy/emergency laparotomy ratio was inferior at level 1 TC for high-grade splenic injuries (30.8% for level 1 and 100% for level 2), whose patients presented higher incidence of other injuries. Splenic NOM failure was registered in only one case (3.3%). At multivariate analysis, systolic pressure, spleen organ injury scale (OIS) and injury severity score (ISS) resulted significant predictive factors for NOM, and only spleen OIS was predictive factor for splenectomy (Odds Ratio 0.14, 0.04–0.49 CI 95%, P < .01). ConclusionBoth level 1 and 2 trauma centers demonstrated application of NOM with a high rate of success with some management difference in the treatment and outcome of patients with splenic injuries between the two types of TCs.

Splenic Artery Embolization in Conservative Management of Blunt Splenic Injury Graded by 2018 AAST-OIS: Results from a Hospital in Vietnam.

This study was conducted to evaluate the results of conservative management of blunt splenic trauma according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) in 2018 by embolization. This observational study included 50 patients (42 men and 8 women) with splenic injury who underwent multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and embolization. According to the 2018 AAST-OIS, 27 cases had higher grades than they did according to the 1994 AAST-OIS. The grades of two cases of grade II increased to grade IV; those of 15 cases of grade III increased to grade IV; and four cases of grade IV increased to grade V. As a result, all patients underwent successful splenic embolization and were stable at discharge. No patients required re-embolization or conversion to splenectomy. The mean hospital stay was 11.8±7 days (range, 6-44 days), with no difference in length of hospital stay among grades of splenic injury (p >0.05). Compared with the AAST-OIS 1994, the AAST-OIS 2018 classification is useful in making embolization decisions, regardless of the degree of blunt splenic injury with vascular lacerations visible on MDCT.

Management of Splenic Injury in Blunt Abdominal Trauma- A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Spleen is the most commonly injured solid organ following blunt trauma. Motor vehicle collision account for more than 75% of splenic injuries. In up to 60% of patients, the spleen is the only organ injured, with mortality rates of roughly 8.5%. Some studies quote that more than half of blunt splenic injuries can be managed by non-operative management with morbidity similar to or less than that of operative management. The management of blunt splenic trauma has therefore shifted towards non operative management. Objective: To study the management of splenic injury in blunt abdominal trauma. Material and Methods: A Cross-sectional study was conducted in the department of Surgery, Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital, Bareilly from 1st November 2020 to 31st October 2021. 36 patients of splenic trauma were included in the study. Result: All grade I and II and 7 out of 10 grade III splenic injuries were managed conservatively. Three patients with grade III splenic damage underwent surgical intervention, with one undergoing splenectomy and two undergoing splenorrhaphy. In Grade IV splenic damage, 6 out of 7 patients were managed operatively, splenectomies were performed in 5 patients and splenorrhaphy was performed in 1 patient. All patients with grade V injuries underwent a splenectomy. Conclusion: In our study, patients with Grade I and Grade II splenic trauma and the majority of Grade III trauma a total of 52.5% of patients could be managed conservatively.

Retrospective Evaluation of Splenic Artery Embolization Outcomes in the Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma: A Single Centre Experience at a Large Level 1 Trauma Centre.

Retrospective review of splenic artery embolization (SAE) outcomes performed for blunt abdominal trauma. 11-year retrospective review at a large level-1 Canadian trauma centre. All patients who underwent SAE after blunt trauma were included. Technical success was defined as angiographic occlusion of the target vessel and clinical success was defined as successful non-operative management and splenic salvage on follow-up. 138 patients were included of which 68.1% were male. The median age was 47years (interquartile range (IQR) = 32.5years). The most common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle accidents (37.0%), mechanical falls (25.4%), and pedestrians hit by motor vehicles (10.9%). 70.3% of patients had American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade 4 injuries. Patients were treated with proximal SAE (n = 97), distal SAE (n = 23) or combined SAE (n = 18), and 68% were embolized with an Amplatzer plug. No significant differences were observed across all measures of hospitalization (Length of hospital stay: x2(2) = .358, P = .836; intensive care unit (ICU) stay: x2(2) = .390, P = .823; ICU stay post-procedure: x2(2) = 1.048, P = .592). Technical success and splenic salvage were achieved in 100% and 97.8% of patients, respectively. 7 patients (5%) had post-embolization complications and 7 patients (5%) died during hospital admission, but death was secondary to other injuries sustained in the trauma rather than complications related to splenic injury or its management. We report that SAE as an adjunct to non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma can be performed safely and effectively with a high rate of clinical success.

Role of Computed Tomography Scan in the Assessment and Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Assam, India

Introduction: Trauma is the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in young individuals. Penetrating splenic injuries are more common than blunt injuries. The management of blunt splenic trauma has substantially evolved over the last few decades, moving from routine splenectomy to preserving the spleen wherever feasible. Aim: To determine the role of Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT) in the diagnosis and treatment of blunt splenic trauma. Materials and Methods: This hospital-based retrospective study was conducted in Department of General Surgery, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Assam, India. During the study period, there were 132 cases of blunt trauma abdomen. Among them, 122 patients had undergone MDCT of the abdomen. Clinical details of those 122 patients who did MDCT for possible blunt trauma of the abdomen were traced and were admitted to the Department of General Surgery, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Assam, India during the period from 1st October 2021 to 31st August 2022 retrospectively. The clinical data of these 122 patients were recorded. Of these 122 patients who underwent MDCT, 21 had splenic injuries. The patients who were treated conservatively were traced and the outcome of the treatment on follow-up, from the clinical notes. The preliminary MDCT findings of the patients were correlated with the final diagnosis and treatment. Fisher’s-exact tests and Chi-square were used for statistical analysis. Results: The 21 splenic injuries in this study were classified based on the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading scales for organ injury, and 14 (66.67%) had Non Operative Management (NOM). Of the four patients with Contrast Material Extravasation (CME), all of them had undergone laparotomy related to the spleen (100%) and demonstrated active bleeding during surgery, but only three of the remaining 17 patients without CME (17.65%) required laparotomy related to the spleen; the difference was statistically found to be significant (p&lt;0.01). Conclusion: The accurate diagnosis provided by MDCT evaluation of blunt splenic injuries helps in formulating the right approach for better management.

Comparison between level 1 and level 2 trauma centers for the management of splenic blunt trauma

IntroductionThe management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved in the last years, from mainly operative approach to the non-operative management (NOM). The aim of this study is to investigate whether trauma center (TC) designation (level 1 and level 2) affects blunt splenic trauma management. MethodsA retrospective analysis of blunt trauma patients with splenic injury admitted to 2 Italian TCs, Niguarda (level 1) and San Carlo Borromeo (level 2), was performed, receiving either NOM or emergency surgical treatment, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Univariate comparison was performed between the two centers, and multivariate analysis was carried out to find predictive factors associated with NOM and splenectomy. Results181 patients were included in the study, 134 from level 1 and 47 from level 2 TCs. The splenectomy/emergency laparotomy ratio was inferior at level 1 TC for high-grade splenic injuries (30.8% for level 1 and 100% for level 2), whose patients presented higher incidence of other injuries. Splenic NOM failure was registered in only one case (3.3%). At multivariate analysis, systolic pressure, spleen organ injury scale (OIS) and injury severity score (ISS) resulted significant predictive factors for NOM, and only spleen OIS was predictive factor for splenectomy (Odds Ratio 0.14, 0.04–0.49 CI 95%, P < .01). ConclusionBoth level 1 and 2 trauma centers demonstrated application of NOM with a high rate of success with some management difference in the treatment and outcome of patients with splenic injuries between the two types of TCs.

Impact of Treatment Modality of Blunt Splenic Injuries on Discharge Status at a Level 1 Trauma Center

Management of blunt splenic trauma has evolved over several decades, trending toward nonoperative management (NOM) and splenic artery embolization (SAE). Open splenectomy can be associated with higher morbidity and need for further care after initial hospitalization. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of treatment modality of blunt splenic injuries on discharge disposition after blunt splenic trauma at a Level 1 trauma center.

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.

208 Blunt Splenic Trauma, Retrospective Study 2008–2013, the Canberra Hospital

Abstract Aim To evaluate the management of Blunt Splenic Trauma (BST) management in multi-injured trauma patients at The Canberra Hospital (TCH). Non operative management (NOM) for hemodynamically stable patients &amp; operative management (OM) for unstable patients. The aim was how to further reduce failed NOM. Method Retrospective data collected from of all multi trauma patients with BST from June 2008 - June 2013 at TCH. Data review included patients’ admission notes, CT results, management technique, and clinical outcome. Results A total of 161 patients included in the study. All paediatric patients treated with NOM with success rate of 100%. Seventy-three per cent of adults managed NOM with success rate of 97.8%. Twenty-six per cent managed operatively. ICU admissions were 54.4 % and splenic angioembolisation 2.9%. Mortality was 3.7 % with multiple injury patients zero with isolated splenic injury Conclusions As per our study NOM is the standard of care for all hemodynamically stable patients with success rate of 97.8% acceptable rate as per evidence more than 96%. All hemodynamically unstable patients with diffuse peritonitis require urgent laparotomy. The query to answer that AE should be considered for all patients with (AAST) grade 4–5 who are hemodynamically stable as adjunct to NOM to reduce rate of fail NOM. Further randomised controlled studies are needed.

911 Delayed Presentation of a Re-Bleed from A Traumatic Splenic Artery Rupture Following Endovascular Management in A Patient with Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome

Abstract Endovascular management of splenic blunt trauma is widely accepted as a safe and effective alternative to open surgery in carefully selected patients. Following a radiologically successful intervention, patients are normally discharged with no follow up after 48-72 hours of haemodynamic stability and satisfactory serial haemoglobin levels. We present a case of a fit and well 24-year-old male patient who presented with abdominal pain, syncope and haemodynamic instability 14 days post successful splenic artery coil-embolization for splenic artery aneurysm rupture secondary to blunt trauma. After initial resuscitation, computed tomography angiography was performed and demonstrated active bleeding from the splenic artery aneurysm which was deemed likely to be a consequence of retrograde filling. The patient underwent successful emergency re-embolization using a combination of embolization coils and Onyx via a trans-splenic approach to eliminate retrograde flow. On further review of the imaging, it was incidentally noted there was evidence suggesting a diagnosis of median arcuate ligament syndrome, which may have predisposed the patient to splanchnic artery aneurysm formation. This case report highlights a potential limitation of endovascular management compared to open surgery and summarises the literature surrounding splenic artery anatomical variations and the implications of median arcuate ligament syndrome. A re-bleed following embolization is a hostile prospect with potentially catastrophic outcomes for patients if not recognised quickly. The authors propose that interval re-imaging should be considered following endovascular management of blunt splenic trauma.

Splenic trauma: endovascular treatment approach.

The spleen is a commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Splenic preservation, however, is important for immune function and prevention of overwhelming infection from encapsulated organisms. Splenic artery embolization (SAE) for high-grade splenic injury has, therefore, increasingly become an important component of non-operative management (NOM). SAE decreases the blood pressure to the spleen to allow healing, but preserves splenic perfusion via robust collateral pathways. SAE can be performed proximally in the main splenic artery, more distally in specific injured branches, or a combination of both proximal and distal embolization. No definitive evidence from available data supports benefits of one strategy over the other. Particles, coils and vascular plugs are the major embolic agents used. Incorporation of SAE in the management of blunt splenic trauma has significantly improved success rates of NOM and spleen salvage. Failure rates generally increase with higher injury severity grades; however, current management results in overall spleen salvage rates of over 85%. Complication rates are low, and primarily consist of rebleeding, parenchymal infarction or abscess. Splenic immune function is felt to be preserved after embolization with no guidelines for prophylactic vaccination against encapsulated bacteria; however, a complete understanding of post-embolization immune changes remains an area in need of further investigation. This review describes the history of SAE from its inception to its current role and indications in the management of splenic trauma. The endovascular approach, technical details, and outcomes are described with relevant examples. SAE is has become an important part of a multidisciplinary strategy for management of complex trauma patients.

Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: The role of splenic artery embolization depending on the severity of parenchymal injury

PurposeTo address the disagreement about the need for splenic artery embolization (SAE) in medium grade blunt splenic trauma this retrospective study evaluates the clinical outcome of non-operative management (NOM) and the possible impact of a more liberal indication for primary SAE. MethodFrom 01/2010 to 12/2019 186 patients presented with splenic injury on computed tomography (CT) after blunt abdominal trauma. The extent of splenic injuries according to Marmery, vascular pathologies, active bleeding as well as clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded and analyzed with regard to the success rates of NOM and SAE. Procedural complications and clinical outcome were noted. The number needed to treat (NNT) was determined for a possible extension of the indication for SAE to grade 3 injuries. ResultsOf 186 patients 126 were managed non-operatively, 47 underwent primary SAE and twelve splenectomy. NOM was successful in 119/126 (94 %) patients. Conversion rate was significantly higher in patients with active bleeding or vascular pathology. Patients with failed NOM had a significantly greater decrease in haemoglobin and haematocrit levels. Primary SAE was successful in 45/47 (96 %) cases. Major complications occurred in four cases (9%), all managed without sequela. The NNT in grade 3 splenic injuries equals 13. ConclusionsNOM of low to medium-grade blunt splenic trauma has a low failure rate. Presence of active haemorrhage is the most important predictor for failure of NOM. SAE should be reserved for high-grade injuries and visible vascular pathology or active bleeding to avoid a disproportionate increase in the NNT.

CT Imaging and Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma: Lessons for Today and Tomorrow

CT Imaging and Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma: Lessons for Today and Tomorrow

Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: evolution, results and controversies.

The spleen is one of the most frequently affected organs in blunt abdominal trauma. Since Upadhyaya, the treatment of splenic trauma has undergone important changes. Currently, the consensus is that every splenic trauma presenting with hemodynamic stability should be initially treated nonoperatively, provided that the hospital has adequate structure and the patient does not present other conditions that indicate abdominal exploration. However, several topics regarding the nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic trauma are still controversial. Splenic angioembolization is a very useful tool for NOM, but there is no consensus on its precise indications. There is no definition in the literature as to how NOM should be conducted, neither about the periodicity of hematimetric control, the transfusion threshold that defines NOM failure, when to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, the need for control imaging, the duration of bed rest, and when it is safe to discharge the patient. The aim of this review is to make a critical analysis of the most recent literature on this topic, exposing the state of the art in the NOM of splenic trauma.

Comparison of outcomes between non-operative and operative management of blunt splenic trauma in adults

Treatment for hemodynamically stable patients is mostly nonoperative observation, with increasing use of splenic angioembolization (SAE). There is a lack of consensus on management plan and use of SAE. In this review, relevant recent literature is analyzed to evaluate the failure rates, complications, mortality, and hospital length of stay for each management method. The analysis of 6299 patients from 9 studies showed that SAE decreased failure rates (1.3%) against nonoperative management (NOM) with 9.8%. There was no significant difference in mortality and hospital length of stay between SAE and NOM. There was increased complications with SAE but it is not enough evidence to draw comparisons between NOM and operative management (OM) due to heterogeneity of studies. SAE decreased need for splenectomies, reduced hospital stay, and complications. OM should be used if the patient is hemodynamically unstable or re-bleeds after NOM. It is imperative that clinicians assess each patient individually and follow a center-based protocol, while keeping in mind, the possible complications from NOM and subsequent interventions. Interventional radiologists will also need to approach SAE with care to prevent technical failures and re-intervention.

Non operative conservative management of blunt trauma to the spleen in Children: A Single Tertiary Hospital Experience

Background: Splenic injury is the leading cause of major bleeding in the patients of blunt abdominal trauma. In earlier medical practice, the blunt splenic injury was managed surgically in most cases, but the increased understanding of the splenic function in the immunological process and the identification of post-splenectomy complications have led physicians to prefer the non-operative management . Material and methods: A retrospective study of the patients with blunt trauma to the spleen in the pediatric age group between the year 2015 and 2018. The study was conducted in (Nasser Institute Hospital for research and treatment). Management of the patients was done using hypovolemic resuscitation and serial follow up. Abdominal ultrasound, complete blood picture and Abdominal CT were done. Data was tabled and analyzed. Results: A total of 123 blunt splenic trauma patients were identified. Traffic-related accident and falling from height were the main mechanisms of injury. Splenic contusion and hematoma were the most frequent finding on initial computerized tomography (CT) scans, followed by shattered spleen, blush, and devascularization. Non-operative management failed in 6 patients who underwent splenectomy. (95.12%) of the patients managed successfully using hypovolemic resuscitation without need for surgical interference. Discussion: Non-operative management is considered for patients with low-grade splenic injuries, unless operated upon for other associated injuries. In fact, higher-grade injuries could also be managed non-operatively. Splenic angioembolization of bleeding vessels increased the success rate of non-operative management in hemodynamically stable patients. In our study, although we didn`t use splenic angioembolization we were able to reach high rates of success. In comparison with the operative management of blunt splenic trauma, the nonoperative management has the added benefit of preserving the splenic functions. Conclusions: Most blunt splenic trauma patients were successfully treated non-operatively, with a low failure rate. The severity of injury and presence of associated lesions should be carefully considered in developing the management plan.