Use of Splenic Artery Embolization as an Adjunct to Nonsurgical Management of Blunt Splenic Injury

Liu, Po Ping; Lee, Wei Che; Cheng, Yu; Hsieh, Pei Min; Hsieh, Yu Min; Tan, Bool Lee; Chen, Feng Chi; Huang, Tai Chien; Tung, Cheng-Cheng

doi:10.1097/01.ta.0000129646.14777.ff

Cited by 103 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 9.8% of patients in NOM and 8% in SAE, had a secondary splenectomy despite a high median ISS at 18.5 and the absence of a clearly defined protocol. This could argue in favor of SAE which seems to be more effective in cases of high-grade spleen injury, large hemoperitoneum, or associated vascular lesions (2,(6)(7)(8)(9)(10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blunt splenic injury: are early adverse events related to trauma, nonoperative management, or surgery?

Frandon¹,

Rodière²,

Arvieux³

et al. 2015

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

B lunt splenic injury (BSI) has become more frequently managed nonoperatively over the years, with the results improved by the contribution of embolization, making it possible to treat active hemorrhages as well as prevent hemorrhages in high-grade trauma of the spleen without active bleeding (1-10). Three methods of splenic artery injury management can be defined: operative management (OM), nonoperative management (NOM), and nonoperative management with splenic artery embolization (SAE).The complication rate in relation to different management methods (operative and nonoperative) continues to be debated. The description and prevalence of these complications varies greatly from one series to another (7,(11)(12)(13), resulting from the confusion existing between adverse events related to injury and those related to treatment. The severity of polytrauma is taken into account using the patients' injury severity score (ISS), and several studies have shown that a high ISS was related to more nonsurgical treatment failures (14). Certain authors have taken a specific interest in the parameters of multiple injuries and shown that lesions of associated organs (pancreas, spinal cord, limbs) were related to more complications (15-17). The severity of trauma and associated lesions could therefore be considered confounding factors resulting in treatment failure and complications. A better understanding of these complications could help in preventing them.The objectives of this study were to compare outcomes of the three types of BSI management, determine if there are any complications statistically related to management methods, and demonstrate risk factors taking polytrauma into account. We focused on associated injuries and early adverse events. Multivariate analysis was performed on 23 prognostic factors to find predictors. RESULTSThe total survival rate was 97.1%, with four deaths all occurred in the OM group. The spleen salvage rate was 91% in NOM and SAE. At least one adverse event was observed in 32.8%, 62%, and 96% of patients in NOM, SAE, and OM groups, respectively (P < 0.001). We found significantly more deaths, infectious complications, pleural drainage, acute renal failures, and pancreatitis in OM and more pseudocysts in SAE. Six prognostic factors were statistically significant for one or more adverse events: simplified acute physiology score 2 ≥25 for almost all adverse events, age ≥50 years for acute respiratory syndrome, limb fracture for secondary bleeding, thoracic injury for pleural drainage, and at least one associated injury for pseudocyst. Adverse events were not related to the type of BSI management. CONCLUSIONPatients with BSI present worse outcome and more adverse events in OM, but this is related to the severity of injury. The main predictor of adverse events remains the severity of injury.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blunt splenic injury: are early adverse events related to trauma, nonoperative management, or surgery?

Frandon¹,

Rodière²,

Arvieux³

et al. 2015

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is chance of varix formation and increased post operative chronic abdominal pain later [2]. Of note, if only splenic artery needs to be sacrificed, complications are less likely from splenic ischemia [14,15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spleen-Preserving Versus Spleen-Sacrificing Distal Pancreatectomy in Laparoscopy and Open Method-Perioperative Outcome Analysis—14 Years Experience

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed perioperative outcome of distal pancreatectomies with or without splenic preservation both in laparoscopic and open method to determine best approach. Retrospective data was collected from 1999 to 2013. We divided all distal pancreatectomies into four groups. Group 1-laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP). Group 2-laparoscopic splenectomy + distal pancreatectomy (LSDP). Group 3-open spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy. Group 4-open splenectomy + distal pancreatectomy. We recorded demographic data, intra and post operative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, pancreatic leak rate, and final pathology result. A total of 38 distal pancreatectomies were included. In group 1, patients were significantly younger (mean 29 vs 47 to 50 in other groups, p=0.014). Tumor size (average 2.5 vs 5 to 9.5 cm in other groups, p=0.023) and operative time (average 98 min vs 125 to 141 in other groups, p=0.004) and hospital stay (average 6 vs 8 to 19 days in other groups, p=0.009) in LSPDP were all significantly less than other groups taken together. However, intra-operative blood loss was equivalent. We further analyzed that between LSPDP and LSDP, age and tumor size were significantly less in LSPDP. Further we analyzed between spleen-preserving (groups 1+3) vs spleensacrificing (groups 2+4) distal pancreatectomies and between overall laparoscopic (groups 1+2) vs open (groups 3+4). Laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy has all the advantages of minimal access surgery especially in small lesions and low-grade malignancy.

show abstract

“…Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has been shown to increase the rate of splenic conservation following trauma, [1][2][3][4][5][6] and is frequently performed as an adjunct to nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury which is now the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients [7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximal Versus Distal Splenic Artery Embolisation for Blunt Splenic Trauma: What is the Impact on Splenic Immune Function?

Foley

Kavnoudias

Cameron

et al. 2015

Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the impact of proximal or distal splenic artery embolisation versus that of splenectomy on splenic immune function as measured by IgM memory B cell levels. Materials and Methods Patients with splenic trauma who were treated by splenic artery embolisation (SAE) were enrolled. After 6 months splenic volume was assessed by CT, and IgM memory B cells in peripheral blood were measured and compared to a local normal reference population and to a post-splenectomy population. Results Of the 71 patients who underwent embolisation, 38 underwent proximal embolisation, 11 underwent distal embolisation, 22 patients were excluded, 1 had both proximal and distal embolisation, 5 did not survive and 16 did not return for evaluation. There was a significant difference between splenectomy and proximal or distal embolisation and a trend towards greater preservation of IgM memory B cell number in those with distal embolisation-a difference that could not be attributed to differences in age, grade of injury or residual splenic volume. Conclusion IgM memory B cell levels are significantly higher in those treated with SAE compared to splenectomy. Our data provide evidence that splenic embolisation should reduce immunological complications of spleen trauma and suggest that distal embolisation may maintain better function.

show abstract

Use of Splenic Artery Embolization as an Adjunct to Nonsurgical Management of Blunt Splenic Injury

Abstract: Judicious use of SAE for patients with blunt splenic injury avoids unnecessary surgery and expands the number of patients who can retain their spleen.

Cited by 103 publications

References 14 publications

Blunt splenic injury: are early adverse events related to trauma, nonoperative management, or surgery?

Blunt splenic injury: are early adverse events related to trauma, nonoperative management, or surgery?

Spleen-Preserving Versus Spleen-Sacrificing Distal Pancreatectomy in Laparoscopy and Open Method-Perioperative Outcome Analysis—14 Years Experience

Proximal Versus Distal Splenic Artery Embolisation for Blunt Splenic Trauma: What is the Impact on Splenic Immune Function?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About