Cargando…

Changing Aspects in the Management of Splenic Injury Patients: Experience of 129 Isolated Splenic Injury Patients at Level 1 Trauma Center from India

BACKGROUND: The spleen is most the commonly injured solid organ in abdominal trauma. Operative management (OM) has been challenged by several studies favoring successful non-OM (NOM) aided by modern era interventional radiology. The results of these studies are confounded by associated injuries impa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bagaria, Dinesh, Kumar, Atish, Ratan, Amulya, Gupta, Amit, Kumar, Abhinav, Kumar, Subodh, Mishra, Biplab, Sagar, Sushma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6496992/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31057282
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JETS.JETS_1_18
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The spleen is most the commonly injured solid organ in abdominal trauma. Operative management (OM) has been challenged by several studies favoring successful non-OM (NOM) aided by modern era interventional radiology. The results of these studies are confounded by associated injuries impacting outcome. The aim of this study is to compare NOM and OM for isolated splenic injury in an Indian Level 1 Trauma Center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospective database. RESULTS: A total of 1496 patients were admitted with abdominal injuries. One hundred and twenty-nine patients admitted with diagnosis of isolated splenic injury from January 2009 to December 2016 were included in the study. RTIs, followed by falls from height, were the most common mechanisms of injury. Ninety-two (71.3%) patients with isolated splenic trauma were successfully managed nonoperatively. Thirty-seven (28.7%) required surgery, of which three were due to the failure of NOM. Three patients in the nonoperative group underwent splenectomy later, giving an overall success rate of 96.8% for NOM. Patients with isolated splenic trauma requiring OM had higher grade splenic injury (Grade 4/5), higher blood transfusion requirements (P < 0.001), and prolonged Intensive Care Unit and hospital stay in comparison to patients in the nonoperative group. No patient died in the NOM group; two patients died in the splenectomy group due to hemorrhagic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although NOM is successful in most patients with blunt isolated splenic injuries, careful selection is the most important factor dictating the success of NOM.