Premium
BLUNT TRAUMA TO THE SPLEEN
Author(s) -
Aseervatham R.,
Muller M.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
australian and new zealand journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.111
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 0004-8682
DOI - 10.1046/j.1440-1622.2000.01821.x
Subject(s) - medicine , blunt , injury severity score , splenectomy , surgery , laparotomy , abdominal trauma , splenic disease , spleen , logistic regression , blunt trauma , grading (engineering) , radiology , poison control , injury prevention , emergency medicine , civil engineering , engineering
Background : The management of splenic injury resulting from blunt trauma in adults is controversial, with an increasing trend towards non‐operative management and conservation of the spleen. A retrospective review was performed on adult patients treated in a single institution for splenic injury resulting from blunt trauma in an attempt to identify factors important in selecting an appropriate management option and predicting the success of that option. Methods : Associated injuries (standardized using Injury Severity Scores), clinical signs at presentation, computed tomographic grading of splenic injury, and transfusion requirements were documented. Statistical analysis was performed using non‐parametric Mann–Whitney, Chi‐squared, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and multivariate logistic regression tests. Results : Eighty‐five patients were identified. Non‐operative management was used on 39 patients, splenic conservation on 14 patients, and splenectomy on 32 patients. The mean Injury Severity Score was significantly lower in the non‐operative group. Computed tomographic grading of the splenic injury was not found to correlate well with intraoperative findings. Transfusion requirements were lower in the non‐operative group. Non‐operative management failed in four patients; two had continued splenic bleeding, and two required surgery for other intra‐abdominal injuries. Overall mortality was 7%. There was one death in the splenic conservation group, unrelated to the splenic injury, and two patients required a second laparotomy and splenectomy for persistent splenic bleeding. There were five deaths in the splenectomy group, only one of which was related to the splenic surgery. Conclusion : Management of blunt splenic injury remains controversial. The decision to pursue non‐operative management rather than splenic conservation or splenectomy depends on the individual merits of each case. There is an increasing trend towards splenic conservation, particularly in younger, stable patients with single organ injury.