Purpose Most children with intra-abdominal injuries can be managed non-operatively. However, in Europe, there are many different healthcare systems for the treatment of pediatric trauma patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the management strategies and outcomes of all pediatric patients with blunt intra-abdominal injuries in our unique dedicated pediatric trauma center with a pediatric trauma surgeon. Methods We performed a retrospective, single-center, cohort study to investigate the management of pediatric patients with blunt abdominal trauma. From the National Trauma Registration database, we retrospectively identified pediatric (≤ 18 years) patients with blunt abdominal injuries admitted to the UMCU from January 2012 till January 2018. Results A total of 121 pediatric patients were included in the study. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of patients was 12 (8-16) years, and the median ISS was 16 (9-25). High-grade liver injuries were found in 12 patients. Three patients had a pancreas injury grade V. Furthermore, 2 (1.6%) patients had urethra injuries and 10 (8.2%) hollow viscus injuries were found. Eighteen (14.9%) patients required a laparotomy and 4 (3.3%) patients underwent angiographic embolization. In 6 (5.0%) patients, complications were found and in 4 (3.3%) children intervention was needed for their complication. No mortality was seen in patients treated non-operatively. One patient died in the operative management group. Conclusions In conclusion, it is safe to treat most children with blunt abdominal injuries non-operatively if monitoring is adequate. These decisions should be made by the clinicians operating on these children, who should be an integral part of the entire group of treating physicians. Surgical interventions are only needed in case of hemodynamic instability or specific injuries such as bowel perforation.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the experiences from the period after the choice was made for palliative, non-operative management for geriatric patients with a hip fracture, to the most important factors in the process, as reported by a proxy.DesignSemistructured interviews were conducted between 1 August 2020 and 1 April 2021 to investigate by-proxy reported patient experiences of non-operative management after hip fracture. Interviews followed a topic guide, recorded and transcribed per word. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes in the data.Setting and participantsPatients were retrospectively identified from the electronic patient record. Relatives (proxies) of the patients who underwent palliative, non-operative management were contacted and were asked to participate in a semistructured interview and were named participants. The participants were proxies of the patients since patients were expected to be deceased during the timing of the interview.ResultsA total of 26 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in this study. The median age of the patients was 88 years (IQR 83–94). The 90-day mortality rate was 92.3%, with a median palliative care period of 11 days (IQR 4–26). A total of 19 participants were subjected to the interview. After thematic analysis, four recurring themes were identified: (1) the decision-making process, (2) pain experience, (3) patient–relative interaction and (4) the active dying.ConclusionsWith the introduction of shared decision-making in an acute setting for geriatric patients with hip fracture, proxies reported palliative, non-operative management as an acceptable and adequate option for patients with high risk of adverse outcomes after surgery. The emerged themes in palliative care for patients with hip fracture show great similarity with severe end-stage disease palliative care, with pain identified as the most important factor influencing comfort of the patient and their environment after hip fracture. Future research should focus on further improving targeted analgesia for these patients focusing on acute pain caused by the fracture.

Backgrounds Splenic injury accounts for 40% of all injuries after blunt abdominal trauma. Blunt splenic injury in hemodynamically unstable patients is preferably treated by splenectomy. Nowadays hemodynamically stable patients with low grade splenic injuries are mostly treated by non-operative management (NOM). However no consensus exists about the management of high grade splenic injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze patients with high grade splenic injuries in our institution. Methods We retrospectively included all patients with a splenic injury presented to our level I trauma center during the 5-year period from January 1, 2012, until December 31, 2017. Baseline characteristics, data regarding complications and mortality were collected from the electronic patient registry. Patients were grouped based on splenic injury and the treatment they received. Results A total of 123 patients were included, of which 93 (75.6%) were male with a median age of 31 (24–52) and a median injury severity score of 27 (17–34). High grade injuries ( n = 28) consisted of 20 Grade IV injuries and 8 grade V injuries. Splenectomy was required in 15/28 (53.6%) patients, of whom all remained hemodynamically unstable after resuscitation, including all grade V injuries. A total of 13 patients with high grade injuries were treated with spleen preserving therapy. Seven of these patients received angio-embolization. One patient went for laparotomy and the spleen was treated with a hemostatic agent. Secondary hemorrhage was present in 3 of these patients (initial treatment: 1 embolization/ 2 observational), resulting in a success rate of 76.9%. There is no mortality seen in patient with high grade splenic injuries. Conclusion Non-operative treatment in high grade splenic injuries is a safe treatment modality in hemodynamically stable patients. Hemodynamic status and peroperative bleeding, not injury severity or splenic injury grade were the drivers for surgical management by splenectomy. This selected cohort of patients must be closely monitored to prevent adverse outcomes from secondary delayed bleeding in case of non-operative management.

Purpose For geriatric hip fracture patients, the decision between surgery and palliative, non-operative management is made through shared decision making (SDM). For this conversation, a physician must be familiar with the patient’s goals of care (GOC). These are predominantly unknown for hip fracture patients and challenging to assess in acute setting. The objective was to explore these GOC of geriatric patients in case of a hip fracture. Methods An expert panel gathered possible outcomes after a hip fracture, which were transformed into statements where participants indicated their relative importance on a 100-point scoring scale during interviews. These GOC were ranked using medians and deemed important if the median score was 90 or above. Patients were aged 70 years or older with a hip contusion due to similarities with the hip fracture population. Three cohorts based on frailty criteria and the diagnosis of dementia were made. Results Preserving cognitive function, being with family and being with partner scored in all groups among the most important GOC. Both non-frail and frail geriatric patients scored return to pre-fracture mobility and maintaining independence among the most important GOC, where proxies of patients with a diagnosis of dementia scored not experiencing pain as the most important GOC. Conclusion All groups scored preserving cognitive function, being with family and being with partner among the most important GOC. The most important GOC should be discussed when a patient is presented with a hip fracture. Since patients preferences vary, a patient-centered assessment of the GOC remains essential.

Purpose There is currently no consensus on nonoperative management in adult patients after a stable type B ankle fracture. The aim of this review is to compare a removable orthosis versus a cast regarding safety and functional outcome in the NOM of stable type B ankle fractures. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using randomized clinical trials and observational studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the methodological index for non-randomized studies instrument. Nonoperative management was compared using the number of complications and functional outcome measured using the Olerud and Molander Score (OMAS) or the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Ankle Score. Results Five studies were included. Two were randomized clinical trials, and three were observational studies, including a total of 516 patients. A meta-analysis showed statistically significant higher odds of developing complications in the cast group [odds ratio (OR), 4.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52–14.35)]. Functional outcome in OMAS did not vary significantly at 6 weeks, mean difference (MD) − 6.64 (95% CI − 13.72 to + 0.45), and at 12 weeks, MD − 6.91 (95% CI − 18.73 to + 4.91). The mean difference of functional outcome in OMAS at 26 weeks or longer was significantly better in the removable orthosis group; MD − 2.63 (95% CI − 5.01 to − 0.25). Conclusion Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that a removable orthosis is a safe alternative type of NOM, as complication numbers are significantly lower in the orthosis group. In addition, no statistically significant differences were found in terms of functional outcome between a removable orthosis and a cast at 6 and 12 weeks. The 6-week and the 26-week OMAS results show that in patients with stable type B ankle fractures, a removable orthosis is non-inferior to a cast in terms of functional outcome.