Cargando…
Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review
INTRODUCTION: The goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056798/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24004931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12868 |
_version_ | 1782320880951492608 |
---|---|
author | Cirocchi, Roberto Boselli, Carlo Corsi, Alessia Farinella, Eriberto Listorti, Chiara Trastulli, Stefano Renzi, Claudio Desiderio, Jacopo Santoro, Alberto Cagini, Lucio Parisi, Amilcare Redler, Adriano Noya, Giuseppe Fingerhut, Abe |
author_facet | Cirocchi, Roberto Boselli, Carlo Corsi, Alessia Farinella, Eriberto Listorti, Chiara Trastulli, Stefano Renzi, Claudio Desiderio, Jacopo Santoro, Alberto Cagini, Lucio Parisi, Amilcare Redler, Adriano Noya, Giuseppe Fingerhut, Abe |
author_sort | Cirocchi, Roberto |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay. METHODS: For this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST. RESULTS: We identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison. CONCLUSIONS: NOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4056798 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40567982014-06-14 Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review Cirocchi, Roberto Boselli, Carlo Corsi, Alessia Farinella, Eriberto Listorti, Chiara Trastulli, Stefano Renzi, Claudio Desiderio, Jacopo Santoro, Alberto Cagini, Lucio Parisi, Amilcare Redler, Adriano Noya, Giuseppe Fingerhut, Abe Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: The goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay. METHODS: For this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST. RESULTS: We identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison. CONCLUSIONS: NOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups. BioMed Central 2013 2013-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4056798/ /pubmed/24004931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12868 Text en Copyright © 2013 Cirocchi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Cirocchi, Roberto Boselli, Carlo Corsi, Alessia Farinella, Eriberto Listorti, Chiara Trastulli, Stefano Renzi, Claudio Desiderio, Jacopo Santoro, Alberto Cagini, Lucio Parisi, Amilcare Redler, Adriano Noya, Giuseppe Fingerhut, Abe Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review |
title | Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review |
title_full | Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review |
title_short | Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review |
title_sort | is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? a systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4056798/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24004931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12868 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cirocchiroberto isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT bosellicarlo isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT corsialessia isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT farinellaeriberto isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT listortichiara isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT trastullistefano isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT renziclaudio isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT desideriojacopo isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT santoroalberto isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT caginilucio isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT parisiamilcare isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT redleradriano isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT noyagiuseppe isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview AT fingerhutabe isnonoperativemanagementsafeandeffectiveforallsplenicblunttraumaasystematicreview |