Success Rate Of Nonoperative Management Research Articles

Failure of nonoperative management of abdominal solid organ injuries

Nonoperative management of the spleen has been the conventional approach for dealing with blunt splenic injury in children for 25 years. Following acceptance in the field of pediatric surgery, nonoperative management of blunt injury to the liver and spleen became the template in adult trauma surgery. It has proven to be of unequivocal benefit to the majority of hemodynamically stable pediatric and adult patients who have suffered blunt liver or splenic trauma. Offsetting these gains, has been the presence of failures. The recent literature has focused on factors which may impact the nonoperative management success or failure rate. These factors include initiation of guidelines, risk of overwhelming postsplenectomy infection, character of clinical judgment, role of computed tomography in detecting associated intraabdominal injuries, the presence of more than one solid organ injury, risk of associated hollow viscus injury, and the drawbacks of angioembolization. Despite the failures of nonoperative management outlined in this review, the approach has been generally successful. Efforts at improving organ salvage rates and diminishing failures with this approach continue. Notwithstanding our enthusiasm to advance this method of patient care, we must avoid imperiling a subpopulation of patients in our attempt to improve nonoperative management success rates.

Evaluation of a 15-year experience with splenic injuries in a state trauma system

The management of splenic injuries has evolved with a greater emphasis on nonoperative management. Although several institutions have demonstrated that nonoperative management of splenic injuries can be performed with an increasing degree of success, the impact of this treatment shift on outcome for all patients with splenic injuries remains unknown. We hypothesized that outcomes for patients with splenic injuries have improved as the paradigm for splenic injury treatment has shifted. Consecutive patients from 1987 to 2001 with splenic injuries who were entered into a state trauma registry were reviewed. Demographic variables, injury characteristics, and outcome data were collected. The number of patients who were diagnosed with splenic injuries increased from 1987 through 2001, despite a stable number of institutions submitting data to the registry. The number of minor injuries and severe splenic injuries remained stable, and the number of moderately severe injuries significantly increased over time. Overall mortality rate improved but primarily reflected the decreased mortality rates of moderately severe injuries; the mortality rate for severe splenic injuries was unchanged. Trauma centers are seeing increasing numbers of splenic injuries that are less severe in magnitude, although the number of the most severe splenic injuries is stable. The increased proportion of patients with less severe splenic injuries who are being admitted to trauma centers is a significant factor in the increased use and success rate of nonoperative management.

Nonoperative Management of Spleen and Liver Injuries

The spleen and liver are the 2 most commonly injured abdominal organs following trauma. Trends in management have changed over the years, and the majority of these injuries are now managed nonoperatively. Splenic injuries can be managed via simple observation or with angiography and embolization. Recent data suggest that there are few true contraindications in the setting of hemodynamic stability. Success rate of nonoperative management may be as high as 95%. Liver injuries can be approached similarly. In the setting of a hemodynamically stable patient, observation with or without angiography and embolization may similarly be used. As many as 80% of patients with liver injury can be successfully managed without laparotomy. This review will discuss current concepts in nonoperative management of liver and spleen, including diagnosis, patient selection, nonoperative management strategies, benefits, risks, and complications.

Splenic Artery Embolization: Have We Gone Too Far?

Splenic artery angioembolization (EMBO) has been promoted to increase the success rate of nonoperative management of splenic injuries. Our institutional clinical pathway calls for EMBO in the setting of ongoing splenic bleeding or contrast blush on computed tomography scan. We perceived a higher rate of failure than that reported in the literature. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with splenic EMBO to identify predictors of failure of nonoperative/EMBO management. The trauma registry and interventional radiology database of a Level I trauma center were reviewed for patients with splenic injuries from January 2000 through June 2004. Charts and films of patients undergoing EMBO were reviewed. There were 221 patients admitted with blunt splenic injuries. Of these, 165 (75%) were selected for nonoperative management; 41 (25%) of them underwent splenic EMBO. Of the 41, 11 patients (27%) failed nonoperative/EMBO management. Of nine patients with low-grade injury (I, II) and small or no hemoperitoneum, none failed EMBO, whereas 10 of 23 (43%) with high-grade injury (III, IV, V) and moderate or large hemoperitoneum failed. EMBO was more likely to fail if extravasation was seen on angiography (59% vs. 4%). Coils (vs. particles) and main (vs. selective) artery EMBO were more often successful. Of EMBO patients who experienced transient hypotension, 57% required splenectomy. EMBO may have salvaged many spleens, but splenectomy was required in 27% of EMBO patients. Patient selection is critical to successful management. Any hypotension in the face of a contrast blush probably warrants laparotomy. The combination of high grade injury and significant hemoperitoneum, or extravasation on angiogram, predict a high risk of failure and thus warrant a low threshold for splenectomy if bleeding persists. Technical EMBO considerations may impact success, but this requires further investigation.

Nonoperative Management of Splenic Injuries: Improved Results with Angioembolization

Nonoperative management (NOM) of patients with severe splenic injuries carries a significant risk of failure. We hypothesized that adding angiographic embolization (AE) to the NOM protocol would decrease the laparotomy rate, and increase the success rate of NOM and splenic salvage rate. A protocol introducing AE in the treatment of splenic injuries was implemented. AE was performed in OIS splenic injury grades 3 to 5 and in all cases where signs of ongoing bleeding were encountered regardless of injury grade. Patients included in a prospective study during a 24-month period were compared with a historic control group. Group 1 (before AE) consisted of 69 patients with a mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 31, and group 2 (after introducing AE) included 64 patients with a mean ISS of 30. In group 1, 30 patients underwent immediate laparotomy (43%), and the NOM success rate was 79%. After introducing AE, 17 patients underwent immediate laparotomy (27%; p = 0.04), with a NOM success rate of 96% (p = 0.02). Overall splenic salvage rate increased from 57% to 75% (p = 0.02). Angiography was performed in 31 patients in group 2. Embolization was performed in 27 of these patients. AE failure rate was 4%. NOM was successful in 14 of 15 patients with OIS injury grades 4 and 5 after the introduction of AE (93%). A formal protocol adding mandatory AE to NOM for severe splenic injuries increased the percentage of patients in whom NOM was attempted, the NOM success rate, and the splenic salvage rate.

Management of Blunt Hepatic and Splenic Trauma in a Greek Level I Trauma Centre

Background and purposes: Non-operative management (NOM) has revolutionized the care of blunt hepatic and splenic trauma patients. The objective of this study is to evaluate treatment of such patients in a Greek level I trauma centre, to identify factors that are important for selecting them for NOM and to investigate for predictors of NOM failure.Material and methods: We reviewed the Trauma Registry data of 96 consecutive adult patients admitted with blunt liver and/or splenic injuries over a 4-year period.Results: Immediately operated patients (32.3%) had lower diastolic arterial pressure (p = 0.02), lower International Classification of Diseases-9th revision Injury Severity Score (ICISS) (p = 0.01), and a higher grade of splenic injury (p = 0.002) than NOM patients. NOM success rate was 80%. No predictors of NOM failure were found; however, isolated splenic trauma patients failed NOM more frequently than hepatic patients (p = 0.02).Conclusions: NOM of adult blunt hepatic and splenic trauma patients is safe and efficient. Haemodynamic stability, ICISS and the grade of splenic injury are important for selecting these patients for NOM while splenic trauma patients need more intense observation.

Is Outcome after Blunt Splenic Injury in Adults Better in High-Volume Trauma Centers?

An association between outcome and case volume has been demonstrated for selected complex operations. The relationship between trauma center volume and patient outcome has also been examined, but no clear consensus has been established. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) has published recommendations on optimal trauma center volume for level 1 designation. We examined whether this volume criteria was associated with outcome differences for the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries. Using a state trauma database, ACS criteria were used to stratify trauma centers into high-volume centers (>240 patients with Injury Severity Score >15 per year) or low-volume centers, and outcome was evaluated. There were 1,829 patients treated at high-volume centers and 1,040 patients treated at low-volume centers. There was no difference in age, gender, emergency department pulse, emergency department systolic blood pressure, or overall mortality between high- and low-volume centers. Patients at low-volume centers were more likely to be treated operatively, but the overall success rate of nonoperative management between high- and low-volume centers was similar. These data suggest that ACS criteria for trauma centers level designation are not associated with differences in outcome in the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries in this regional trauma system.

Assessment of Nonoperative Management of Blunt Spleen and Liver Trauma

An 8-year analysis of nonoperative management (NOM) of spleen and liver trauma was done in a level 1 trauma center. Spleen and liver trauma was diagnosed in 279 patients: 93 children (<18), 137 younger adults (18-54), and 49 older adults (> or = 55). Nineteen patients who failed resuscitations died within 0-60 minutes of arrival and were excluded from treatment analysis. Operative management (OM) was done in 39 (15%) and NOM in 221 (85%) patients with failure (NOMF) in 11 (5%). NOM and NOMF was 82 per cent and 5.6 per cent in spleen, 74 per cent and 14.3 per cent in combined spleen/liver, and 96 per cent and 1.5 per cent in liver trauma (P value <0.001). NOM was done in 99 per cent of children, 81 per cent of younger adults, and 68 per cent of older adults with 0 per cent, 8 per cent, and 10 per cent NOMF. Higher grades of splenic trauma and CT fluid had higher OM rate. NOM success rates were 93.8 per cent in grade 3 and 90.3 per cent in higher grades of spleen trauma. There was no NOMF in higher grades of liver trauma. CT fluid grade had no impact on NOMF. Female patients had higher mean injury severity score, age, and mortality compared to cohorts. NOM should be attempted in hemodynamically stable patients. Age over 55, higher grades of injury, and large hemoperitoneum were not predictors of failure of NOM.

Nonoperative Management of Blunt Splenic Injury: A 5-Year Experience

The purpose of this study was to examine the success rate of nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury in an institution using splenic embolization. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients admitted to a Level I trauma center with blunt splenic injury. Data review included patient demographics, computed tomographic (CT) scan results, management technique, and patient outcomes. A total of 648 patients with blunt splenic injury were admitted, 280 of whom underwent immediate surgical management. Three hundred sixty-eight underwent planned nonoperative management, and 70 patients were treated with observation, serial abdominal examination, and follow-up abdominal CT scanning. All were hemodynamically stable, with a 100% salvage rate. One hundred sixty-six patients had a negative angiogram, with a nonoperative salvage rate of 94%, and 132 patients underwent embolization, with a nonoperative salvage rate of 90%. Overall salvage rates decreased with increasing injury grade; however, over 80% of grade 4 and 5 injuries were successfully managed nonoperatively. The salvage rate was similar for main coil embolization versus selective or combined embolization techniques. Admission abdominal CT scan correlated with splenic salvage rates. Significant hemoperitoneum, extravasation, and pseudoaneurysm had acceptable salvage rates, whereas arteriovenous fistula had a high failure rate, even after embolization. Splenic embolization is a valuable adjunct to splenic salvage in our experience, allowing for the increased use of nonoperative management and higher salvage rates for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury grades when compared with prior studies. Main coil embolization has a similar salvage rate when compared with other angiographic techniques. An arteriovenous fistula as a CT finding was predictive of a 40% nonoperative failure rate.

Management of blunt liver injury safety profile of the nonoperative management

Background. Multiple studies support the nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt liver injury (BLI). Hemodynamically unstable patients remain a clear-cut indication for operative management. This study elucidates the failure rate of NOM as well as the etiology of unsuccessful NOM. Methods. A retrospective chart review of 538 trauma admissions with documented BLI was conducted at a level I trauma center. BLI was classified according to the AAST Organ Injury Scale. Variables included were age, grade of the liver injury, associated organ injuries, injury severity scale, transfusion requirement, and the need for exploratory laparotomy. Laparotomy was defined as delayed when patient needed operation after departure from the emergency department. Delayed exploratory laparotomy was considered a failure of NOM when surgery was performed to control liver hemorrhage. Results. Mean age was 35 years; 55% were men. Mean BLI grade was 2.4 and ISS was 23. Thirty-six percent had other associated intraabdominal injury. Of the 538 patients, only 102 (19%) went to operation and 20 were delayed. Of these, 18 patients had other injuries as primary cause for exploration (spleen, hollow viscus, abdominal compartment syndrome, etc.). Only two patients (0.005%) failed NOM; both had Grade V injury and both required surgery within 4 h from admission. Conclusion. The success rate of NOM in the stable patient with BLI is nearly 100%. Heightened care should be emphasized on patients with other intraabdominal injury or large fluid resuscitation who may fail NOM.

Solid Organ Trauma

Nonoperative management (NOM) can now be applied to the majority of solid organ injuries. Interventional radiology techniques have great potential to improve the success rates of NOM by treating those patients who are at risk of or who are failing NOM. In other patients interventional techniques may be used as an adjunct to surgery. The purpose of this article is to review the diagnosis and treatment of solid organ injury with emphasis on the role of interventional techniques for management of vascular injuries involving the liver, spleen, and kidneys.

Role of Vascular and Interventional Radiology in the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Trauma Patients

Vascular and interventional radiology provides an important service in the diagnosis and management of the acute trauma patient. Historically angiography was used primarily as a diagnostic tool for both vascular and solid organ injuries. However, with technological advances, such as the advent of stents, stent grafts, newer embolization materials and sophisticated delivery devices, micro-catheters, and steerable guide wires, vascular and interventional radiology can now offer definitive treatment in selected cases. Transcatheter embolization can effectively treat acute hemorrhage and is useful in locations that are difficult to access surgically, or when surgical disruption of fascial planes, which may eliminate a tamponade effect, is less desirable. Stents and stent grafts have been used to preserve, rather than sacrifice, an injured blood vessel. In splenic, hepatic, and renal trauma, a trend in nonoperative management has been developed by traumatologists. Transcatheter embolization can increase the success rate of nonoperative management in selected injuries. In general, despite the injury grade, if evidence of ongoing hemorrhage is present, angiography and transcatheter embolization should be considered. Peripheral vascular injuries can be treated with transcatheter embolization or stents and stent grafts. Transcatheter embolization in trauma was first applied to bleeding associated with pelvic fractures and dislocations, and continues to be an important treatment option. Carotid and vertebral artery injuries can now be repaired using stents or stent grafts, although the experience of this treatment strategy is somewhat limited. Likewise, acute traumatic aortic injury has been successfully treated with stent grafts in small series. Conventional catheter thoracic aortography is now used as an adjunctive diagnostic test for indeterminate or questionable findings on noninvasive imaging studies, primarily computed tomography scans of the chest. In summary, vascular and interventional radiology maintains an important role in the diagnosis and management of acute vascular and solid organ injury. The following review illustrates its current status in acute trauma.

Nonoperative Management of Blunt Splenic Injuries: Factors Influencing Success in Age &lt;55 Years

Historically poor success rates of nonoperative management of splenic injuries in elderly patients have led to recommendations for operative intervention in patients more than 55 years of age. Recent studies are in opposition to earlier recommendations revealing equal success rates of nonoperative management of splenic injuries in all age groups. A retrospective chart review was performed to assess factors related to the successful management of splenic injuries in patients over 55 years of age at a Level I trauma center. Thirty-seven patients over 55 presented with blunt splenic injuries during the 5-year study period. Thirteen patients were taken immediately to the operating room on the basis of clinical findings and/or abdomen/pelvis CT results. Nonoperative management was attempted in 24 patients on the basis of CT findings. Nonoperative management was successful in 15 patients (62.5%) and failed in eight patients (33.3%). Patients who failed nonoperative management had significantly higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma splenic injury grade and associated pelvic free fluid. There were no deaths related to complications from failed nonoperative management. We conclude that nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries in patients over 55 may be attempted. Patients with higher-grade injuries and pelvic free fluid are at greater risk for failure. Patients with these two findings must be monitored closely. The physicians caring for elderly patients with high-grade splenic injuries and free fluid in the pelvis must use clinical judgment regarding the need and timing of operative management.

Computed tomography in blunt hepatic trauma.

Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury in hemodynamically stable trauma patients is now common. Recently, it has been proposed that the finding of hepatic periportal tracking (PPT) of blood on the initial computed tomographic (CT) scan is a sensitive marker of significant hepatic and subhepatic injury that might militate against nonoperative management. While CT scan is useful in diagnosing the injury, the utility of follow-up CT scans has not been elucidated. Retrospective chart review. Regional trauma center. The records of 58 hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic trauma were reviewed and the following data recorded: age, outcome, Injury Severity Score (ISS), operative intervention, and complications. Computed tomographic scans were taken on admission and reviewed for the presence of PPT. The timing and radiographic appearance of follow-up CT scans was also recorded. Seventeen patients (29%) had radiographic evidence of PPT while 41 patients (71%) did not. Age, ISS, injury grade, overall success rate of nonoperative management, and incidence of complications were not statistically significant between the two groups. In no instance did a routine follow-up CT scan affect subsequent management of the patient. The finding of PPT on the admission CT scan is not clinically significant and does not preclude nonoperative management of patients with blunt hepatic injury. Furthermore, routine follow-up CT scans are not indicated, as treatment is not influenced by their results. Rather, follow-up CT scans should be obtained as dictated by the patient's clinical course. Extrapolation of these findings to all patients with blunt hepatic trauma in the United States would result in considerable savings of health care dollars, without negatively affecting patient care.