Non-operative Management Of Liver Injury Research Articles

Management of liver trauma in urban university hospitals in India: an observational multicentre cohort study

BackgroundLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute to 90% of injuries occurring in the world. The liver is one of the commonest organs injured in abdominal trauma. This study aims to highlight the demographic and management profile of liver injury patients, presenting to four urban Indian university hospitals in India.MethodsThis is a retrospective registry-based study. Data of patients with liver injury either isolated or concomitant with other injuries was used using the ICD-10 code S36.1 for liver injury. The severity of injury was graded based on the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) grading for liver injuries.ResultsA total of 368 liver injury patients were analysed. Eighty-nine percent were males, with road traffic injuries being the commonest mechanism. As per WSES liver injury grade, there were 127 (34.5%) grade I, 96 (26.1%) grade II, 70 (19.0%) grade III and 66 (17.9%) grade IV injuries. The overall mortality was 16.6%. Two hundred sixty-two patients (71.2%) were managed non-operatively (NOM), and 106 (38.8%) were operated. 90.1% of those managed non-operatively survived.ConclusionIn this multicentre cohort of liver injury patients from urban university hospitals in India, the commonest profile of patient was a young male, with a blunt injury to the abdomen due to a road traffic accident. Success rate of non-operative management of liver injury is comparable to other countries.

Adjunctive use of hepatic angioembolization following hemorrhage control laparotomy.

Severe liver injuries pose a challenge to trauma surgeons. While the use of hepatic angioembolization (HAE) has been evaluated as a component of the nonoperative management of liver injury, little is known about the efficacy of postoperative HAE in patients who require hemorrhage control laparotomy (HCL) for liver injury. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of HAE following HCL on patient survival. This is a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from January 2013 to December 2014. In propensity score matched (2:1) patients who underwent HCL-only or HCL + HAE, the impact of adjunctive use of HAE on patient survival was examined with the Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusting for transfusion requirement within 4 hours. We also performed a subgroup analysis in patients without severe traumatic brain injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale head ≤3). A total of 1,675 patients met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 75 (4.5%) patients underwent HAE after HCL (median hours to HAE, 5 hours after admission). In 225 propensity score-matched patients, the use of HAE following HCL was significantly associated with improved 24-hour mortality, but not in-hospital mortality. In the subgroup of patients without severe traumatic brain injury (n = 189), we observed significant survival benefits (24-hour and in-hospital mortality) associated with the adjunctive use of HAE. The results of our study suggest that the adjunctive use of HAE might improve survival of patients who require HCL for liver injury. Further prospective study to determine the indication for postoperative HAE is still warranted. Therapeutic study, level III.

A modern, multicenter evaluation of hepatic angioembolization – Complications and readmissions persist

BackgroundIndications for angioembolization (AE) following liver injury are not clearly defined. This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of hepatic AE. We hypothesize hepatic angioembolization is a useful adjunct to non-operative management of liver injury but with significant morbidity. MethodsSubjects were identified utilizing trauma registries from centers in a regional trauma network from 2010 to 2017 with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) coded hepatic injury and an ICD9/10 for hepatic angiography (HA). Results1319 patients with liver injuries were identified, with 30 (2.3%) patients undergoing HA: median ISS was 26, and median liver AIS was 4. Twenty-three subjects required AE. 81% had extravasation on CT from a liver injury. 63% underwent HA as initial intervention. 43% of AE subjects had liver-related complications with 35% 30-day readmission but with zero 30-day mortality. ConclusionsWhile there were zero reported deaths, a high rate of morbidity and readmission was found. This may be due to the angioembolization or the liver injury itself.

Management of Abdominal Trauma with Liver Injuries among Patients in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background: recently, there was a shift in the management plan for liver blunt trauma from operative to non-operative treatment, as there were advances in critical care and sensitivity of diagnostic tools for detection of liver injury such as CT scan. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence and correlates of non-operative management of liver injury among abdominal trauma patients admitted under surgical team care. Patients and Methods: this is a retrospective cohort study carried out in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from May 2017 to June 2018. All patients admitted to general surgery departments with abdominal trauma and liver injuries were included. Variables were obtained through file review. Results: the study included 54 patients with liver trauma. Their age ranged from 7 to 60 years with mean age of 29.2±11.3. Male was the dominant gender; with male to female ratio were 8 to 1. Regarding mechanism of injury, all cases of fall down and 88.9% of road traffic accidents compared to none of penetrating injury were treated non-operatively, p=0.011. Concerning CT grading, all cases of grade I compared to 75% of grade IV and 70% of grade III were treated non-operatively, p=0.016. Majority of patients treated non-operatively (45/48; 93.8%) compared to one third of those treated operatively (2/6; 33.3%) were improved on discharge, pConclusion: the prevalence of non-operative management of liver injury in Riyadh hospitals is currently very high, ever for high-grade injuries. Most of them were improved on discharge compared to those managed operatively.

Update: Outcome of ERC in High Grade Traumatic Liver Injury

Introduction: Non-operative management of liver injuries has become the standard of care in the last 20 years, however data on the efficacy of endoscopic treatment of traumatic biliary injuries is limited to case reports and case series. This is a completed follow up to the data presented last year as a retrospective look at endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with biliary stenting in patients with traumatic bile leaks; pancreatic stenting was excluded. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review for all bile leaks at two academic hospitals in New Orleans including a level one trauma center between January 2013 and June 2018. Cases were reviewed for mechanism of injury, liver injury grade, location of injury, number of procedures required (ERC, surgical, interventional radiology), type of stent, and total follow up days from initial stent. Data was collected using Microsoft Access Database. Outcome of success was based on a lack of extravasation of contrast on cholangiogram at final ERC. Results: Results are shown in TABLE 1. Four cases were due to gunshot wound and five were due to motor vehicle accident including one car versus pedestrian. One had an extrahepatic bile duct injury and the rest were all high grade liver injuries (grade IV or V). Biliary spinchterotomies were performed in all cases. One patient required consecutive stenting but was lost to follow up. Eight patients had no extravasation on cholangiogram during repeat ERC. Conclusion: In this small series, endoscopic sphincterotomy with biliary stent placement is an effective treatment for bile leaks associated with high grade traumatic liver injuries. Stent placement need not extend to the site of the leak as eight of the nine did not extend above the biliary bifurcation. Endoscopic therapy should be considered even in high grade liver injury with bile leak.808 Figure 1 No Caption available.

(P2-69) Diagnosis and Management of Bile Leaks After Blunt Liver Injury by Dicct

BackgroundAlthough bile leaks are emerging as frequent complications of non-operative management of liver injury, the best method to use to diagnose intrahepatic biliary injury (IHBI) has not been established.MethodsFifteen patients with a blunt liver injury admitted to the hospital during a two-year period, were diagnosed by computed tomography as having a grade 3–4 injury, and underwent DIC-MDCT intended to diagnose IHBI in its early stages. These 15 patients included 11 with a grade 4 (Group A: five patients who underwent TAE; Group B: six patients who did not undergo TAE) and four with a grade 3.ResultsIn Group A, all of the patients were found to have some signs of IHBI in DIC-CT. Of these patients, two were found to have extrahepatic leakage and underwent local drainage; one also underwent ENBD. Three patients were not found to have extrahepatic leakage even though they had signs of IHBI; these three underwent conservative therapy with no other care, and had a satisfactory course. In Group B, only one patient was found to have IHBI. However, all of the patients, including those not found to have signs of IHBI in DIC-CT, recovered. Patients with grade 3 did not have signs of IHBI. Compared to Group B, Group A had a high Injury Severity Scale Score of 38.5 ± 11.2, and a higher incidence of IHBI.ConclusionsDIC-MDCT may, in cases of severe liver injury that might require TAE, help to diagnose IHBI in its early stages, and help to determine if additional treatment is needed based on the site and extent of the injury and whether extrahepatic bile leakage is present.

Improved outcomes in the non-operative management of liver injuries

ObjectivesNon-operative management has become the treatment of choice in the majority of liver injuries. The aim of this study was to assess the changes in primary treatment and outcomes in a single Dutch Level 1 trauma centre with wide experience in angio-embolisation (AE). MethodsThe prospective trauma registry was retrospectively analysed for 7-year periods before (Period 1) and after (Period 2) the introduction of AE. The primary outcome was the failure rate of primary treatment defined as liver injury-related death or re-bleeding requiring radiologic or operative (re)interventions. Secondary outcomes were liver injury-related intra-abdominal complications. ResultsDespite an increase in high-grade liver injuries, the incidence of primary non-operative management more than doubled over the two periods, from 33% (20 of 61 cases) in Period 1 to 72% (84 of 116 cases) in Period 2 (P < 0.001). The failure rate of primary treatment in Period 1 was 18% (11/61), compared with 11% (13/116) in Period 2 (P= 0.21). Complication rates were 23% (14/61) and 16% (18/116) in Periods 1 and 2, respectively (P= 0.22). Liver-related mortality rates were 10% (6/61) and 3% (4/116) in Periods 1 and 2, respectively (P= 0.095). The increase in the frequency of non-operative management was even higher in high-grade injuries, in which outcomes were improved. In high-grade injuries in Periods 1 and 2, failure rates decreased from 45% (9/20) to 20% (11/55) (P= 0.041), liver-related mortality decreased from 30% (6/20) to 7% (4/55) (P= 0.019) and complication rates fell from 60% (12/20) to 27% (15/55) (P= 0.014). Liver infarction or necrosis and abscess formation seemed to occur more frequently with AE. ConclusionsOverall, liver-related mortality, treatment failure and complication rates remained constant despite an increase in non-operative management. However, in high-grade injuries outcomes improved after the introduction of AE.

Evaluating a conservative approach to managing liver injuries in Kashmir, India

Aim:There has been a steep rise in incidence of liver injury in the past few years because of increase in incidence of road traffic accidents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of non-operative management of liver injury due to blunt abdominal trauma.Materials and Methods:All patients with liver injury from blunt trauma abdomen were studied between January 2000 and January 2010. A total of 152 patients with liver injury were put on conservative management. Hundred and three (67.77%) patients were males and 49 (32.23%) were females with an age range of 15-60 years (32.8 years). Most of the injuries were because of road traffic accidents (81.57%). Liver injuries were graded according to Moore's classification using computed tomography. Patients with Grade V and VI were excluded from the study. Patients who were unstable hemodynamically on admission were also excluded from the study.Results:There was no mortality in our series. Eight patients needed exploration because they developed hemodynamic instability. Four of the patient developed post-operative liver abscess which was treated conservatively.Conclusion:Non-operative management of liver injury due to blunt trauma abdomen is a safe, effective and treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable Moore's grade I to Grade IV injury.

Traumatic Liver Injury in Hong Kong: The Management Strategy and Outcome

IntroductionManagement of liver injury is challenging and evolving. The aim of this article is to review the outcome of traumatic liver injury in Chinese people in Hong Kong.Materials &amp; methodsRecords of 40 patients with hepatic injury who received treatment at the Prince of Wales Hospital between December 2000 and May 2005 were reviewed. Demographic data, severity of liver injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), haemodynamic status and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score on admission, investigations made, concomitant injuries, management scheme, and outcome of patients were analysed.ResultsThere were 23 male and 17 female patients with a mean age of 31.3 (SD=15.4) years. Road traffic accident was the most common injury mechanism (65%). Half of the patients were treated by non‐operative management (NOM). None of them required surgery during subsequent management. Patients in the operative management (OM) group had a significantly higher ISS (p=0.026), but there was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the OM and NOM groups. Patients with stable haemodynamic status and who were treated non‐operatively had a significantly shorter hospital stay (p=0.006). High grade liver injury (OR=8.0, 95% CI=1.2 to 53.8, p=0.03) and ISS greater than 25 (OR=21.6, 95% CI=2.0 to 225.3, p=0.01) were independent risk factors for mortality on multivariate analysis.ConclusionsNon‐operative management of liver injury can be safely accomplished in haemodynamically stable patients, with the possible benefit of a shorter hospital stay.

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.

Selective management of blunt hepatic injuries including nonoperative management is a safe and effective strategy

The justification and preference for operative versus nonoperative management of hepatic injuries caused by blunt trauma remains ambiguous. This review assesses the outcome of operative and nonoperative management of liver injury after blunt trauma. We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, severity of injury, severity of liver injury, associated concomitant injuries, management scheme, and outcome of patients with documented hepatic injury from 1993 to 2003. The overall mortality rate was 9.4%, with 3.7% caused by the liver injury itself. Fifty-nine percent (330 of 561) of liver injuries were of low severity (grades I and II), with an overall mortality rate of 6.6% caused by concomitant injuries and liver-related mortality of 0%. Forty-one percent (231 of 561) of liver injuries were high-severity injuries (grades III, IV, and V). Mortality for nonoperative management of high-severity liver injuries was 2.2%. If operative intervention was required because of hemodynamic instability or concomitant injuries then the mortality rate was significantly higher at 30%. Forty-two of the 378 (11%) liver injuries treated nonoperatively required an adjunctive procedure for successful management. Selective management of liver injuries presented a low liver-related mortality rate. Low-grade injuries can be managed nonoperatively with excellent results. High-grade injuries can be managed nonoperatively, if operative intervention is not required for hemodynamic instability or associated injuries, with a low mortality. In these patients, adjunctive procedures will be required selectively for successful nonoperative management of high-grade liver injuries. High-grade injuries requiring operative management because of hemodynamic instability or concomitant injuries continue to have significantly higher mortality.

The Evolving Management of Blunt Hepatic Trauma in a Rural Setting

Over the past decade, a nonoperative approach toward the management of blunt hepatic trauma has become prevalent at most major urban trauma centers. To determine the applicability of the nonoperative approach in a rural setting, a 10-year retrospective review was conducted at a level I rural university-based trauma center. The Census Bureau defines ruralized areas to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory and population. A ruralized area is composed of one or more places and the adjacent surrounding territory that together have a maximum of 50,000 persons. West Virginia University is classified as a rural academic medical center and is situated in Morgantown, whose permanent population does not exceed 35,000. All patients with documented blunt hepatic trauma between July 1990 and June 2000 were identified and reviewed. To evaluate evolving trends, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (July 1, 1990-June 30, 1995) and group B (July 1, 1995-June 30, 2000). There were 236 patients with documented blunt hepatic trauma identified between July 1, 1990, and June 30, 2000). Overall, 70 per cent of patients were managed conservatively. When comparing the two groups, statistical significance was obtained in mean hospital length of stay (LOS) [19.8 days A vs. 9.1 days B (P < 0.0001)]; mean intensive care unit (ICU) days [15.2 days A vs. 5.3 days B (P < 0.0001)], blood transfusion [10 units A vs. 4.2 units B (P < 0.0016)], number of patients requiring surgery [52 (46%) A vs. 37 (30%) B (P < 0.022)]. There was only one death associated with nonoperative management. We have shown a definite trend toward nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma in a rural setting over the past decade. More than 70 per cent of our liver injury patients over the past 5 years have been managed nonoperatively, with statistically significant reductions in hospital LOS, ICU LOS, and transfusion requirements. We have found a definite trend over the past decade toward nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma in a rural setting. The rural setting with a delay in transport time to level I trauma center also did not significantly affect the outcome of the patients with nonoperative management of liver injuries. Approximately 78 per cent of our liver injury patients over the past 5 years have been managed nonoperatively and are associated with statistically significant reductions in hospital and ICU LOS and transfusion requirements.

High success with nonoperative management of blunt hepatic trauma: the liver is a sturdy organ.

Nonoperative management of liver injuries (NOMLI) is highly successful and rarely leads to adverse events. Prospective observational study. High-volume academic level I trauma center. For 26 months, 78 consecutive unselected patients with liver injuries were followed up prospectively. In the absence of hemodynamic instability or signs of hollow visceral trauma, NOMLI was offered irrespective of the magnitude of the liver injury. Main Outcome Measure Failure of NOMLI, defined as a laparotomy after an initial decision to treat the patient nonoperatively. Of the 78 patients, 23 (29%) were operated on immediately, but only 12 (15%) for bleeding from the liver. All 12 patients required packing in addition to other maneuvers (hepatorrhaphy [n = 8], resection [n = 4], and liver isolation [n = 1]). Of the remaining 55 patients selected for NOMLI, the method failed in 8 for reasons unrelated to the liver injury: 2 underwent a splenectomy, 1 underwent a nephrectomy, 1 had a small-bowel repair, 1 underwent abdominal decompression for abdominal compartment syndrome, and 3 underwent a nontherapeutic laparotomy. The success rate of NOMLI was 85% (47 of 55 patients), but the liver-specific success rate was 100%. Compared with those in whom NOMLI was successful, patients in whom it failed had a higher Injury Severity Score and underwent more blood transfusions, but they had similar liver injury grades. In total, 66 (85%) of liver injuries did not bleed significantly. No adverse events were attributed to NOMLI. Nonoperative management of liver injuries is safe and effective regardless of the grade of liver injury. Failure of NOMLI is caused by associated abdominal injuries and not the liver. Fluid and blood requirements, the degree of injury severity, and the presence of other abdominal organ injuries may help predict failure.

Current Status of Nonoperative Management of Liver Injuries

The successful use of nonoperative management of liver injuries requires a hemodynamically stable patient and early access to computed tomography (CT). Extensive intraperitoneal blood and extravasation of contrast on CT predict potential clinical failures. The CT appearance of the liver injury has poor correlation with clinical outcome. Angiographic embolization complements nonoperative management in the stable patient with an ongoing blood requirement. The follow-up CT scan is not required provided the hematocrit and the patient's clinical status remain stable. Common errors in nonoperative management include attributing evidence of blood loss to nonhepatic sources and continuing transfusions in anticipation that the bleeding will stop without intervention.

A Successful Multitnodality Strategy for Management of Liver Injuries

The treatment of liver injuries involves many strategies ranging from observation to operative intervention and includes numerous options such as angiography, packing, and damage-control procedures. In July 1994 we instituted a protocol for the management of traumatic liver injuries. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the management of liver injuries occurring since the institution of the protocol. Two hundred three consecutive adult patients with liver injuries were evaluated at our Level I trauma center between July 1994 and May 1999. Eighty-eight per cent of the injuries were blunt with a mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 24.3 ± 0.8 and a survival probability (Ps) of 90.0 ± 1.5 per cent. The overall mortality was 6.4 per cent. A comparison between patients with minor liver injuries and patients with more severe injuries [Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) &lt;3 vs &gt;3] demonstrated no difference in mortality between the two groups despite a Ps of 93.8 ± 1.3 per cent in patients with an AIS &lt;3 versus 84.1 ± 3.3 per cent in patients with an AIS &gt;3. The most common complication in our patient population was posthemorrhagic anemia, which was seen in 10.8 per cent of cases. Severity of injury did not result in a significant difference in the complication rate. Patients who underwent laparotomy had a statistically higher ISS, a lower Ps, and a mortality rate of 11.5 per cent compared with 3.7 per cent ( P = 0.03) in patients managed nonoperatively. However, a comparison of patients undergoing laparotomy with those who did not and who had equivalent ISS demonstrated no difference in mortality. Our results demonstrated that a preplanned management strategy was a successful way in which to treat patients with traumatic liver injuries. Although nonoperative management of liver injuries has been common practice a management plan that involves a multimodal surgical strategy is essential.

Nonoperative Management of Liver Injuries in Adults Is Safe

Until the early 1990s, blunt liver injuries routinely were managed operatively. High-resolution CT scanning has improved the diagnostic evaluation of

A Minimally Invasive Approach to Bile Peritonitis after Blunt Liver Injury

The advent of nonoperative management of liver injuries has made it imperative that surgeons be familiar with the potential delayed complications of this approach. In this report, we describe a minimally invasive strategy for the management of bile peritonitis following nonoperative management of blunt liver injuries. Two cases are presented in which bile peritonitis with massive bile ascites was managed with laparoscopic localization and drainage of the bile leak, irrigation of the peritoneal cavity, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with bile duct stenting. In both cases the bile leak ceased, and the patients recovered without adverse sequelae. The combination of laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic stenting provides a minimally invasive approach to this entity.

Nonoperative management of liver injuries following blunt abdominal trauma in children

In a 4-year span, 12 patients with hepatic trauma were treated at our institution. After initial resuscitation, three underwent emergency celiotomy because of the severity of their injuries. This communication analyses the other nine. All of these had significant liver injuries and were managed nonoperatively. Hepatic injury was diagnosed and the severity defined by ultrasonography, radionuclide scintigraphy, or computed tomography (CT). These stable patients were initially admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and upon transfer to the ward, maintained on restricted activities. Seven of the nine children received blood transfusions. Although liver enzymes were initially elevated in each case, they returned to normal in 1 week. In-hospital and post-discharge imaging documented healing of the hepatic injuries in each case. Eight children are well at 3 months to 4 years follow-up. Only one of the nine nonoperatively managed patients died and this was secondary to severe head injuries. To date, there are no complications. Our nine children are added to the 23 nonoperatively treated pediatric hepatic injuries found in the literature.