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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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