Is non-operative management of severe blunt splenic injury safer than embolization or surgery? Results from a French prospective multicenter study
Résumé
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The management of the severe blunt splenic injuries remains debated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality of splenic injury according to severity and management (surgery, embolization, non-operative management [NOM]).
METHODS:
A prospective multicenter study was conducted including patients aged 16 years and older with diagnosed splenic injury. We evaluated severity according to the AAST classification, the presence of hemoperitoneum or a contrast blush on initial CT scan. The initial hemodynamic status, patients co-morbidities, the ISS (injury severity score), management and morbidity were also noted.
RESULTS:
Between May 2010 and May 2012, 91 patients were included. Thirty-seven patients (41%) had mild splenic injury (AAST I or II and a small hemoperitoneum) while 54 patients (59%) had severe splenic injury (AAST III or greater). The management included 18 splenectomies (20%), 15 embolizations (16%). Among 67 patients undergoing NOM without initial embolization, five (7%) developed secondary bleeding, five required surgery and nine underwent secondary embolization. No patient died and morbidity was 44% (n=40), 13% for mild injuries vs. 65% for severe injuries (P<0.01). For severe injuries, total morbidity was 58% after NOM, 73% after embolization and 70% after surgery. Specific morbidity related to the management was 10% after NOM vs. 47% after embolization (P=0.02). Specific morbidity after surgery was 15%.
CONCLUSION:
Embolization, because of its important specific morbidity, should not be performed as a prophylactic measure, but only in presence of clinical or laboratory signs of bleeding.