El-Matbouly Moamena, Jabbour Gaby, El-Menyar Ayman, Peralta Ruben, Abdelrahman Husham, Zarour Ahmad, Al-Hassani Ammar, Al-Thani Hassan
Department of Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
Clinical Research, Trauma Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar; Clinical Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, Doha, Qatar.
Surgeon. 2016 Feb;14(1):52-8. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2015.08.001. Epub 2015 Aug 30.
The approach for diagnosis and management of blunt splenic injury (BSI) has been considerably shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). We aimed to review the current practice for the evaluation, diagnosis and management of BSI.
A traditional narrative literature review was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE and Google scholar search engines. We used the keywords "Traumatic Splenic injury", "Blunt splenic trauma", "management" between December 1954 and November 2014.
Most of the current guidelines support the NOM or minimally approaches in hemodynamically stable patients. Improvement in the diagnostic modalities guide the surgeons to decide the timely management pathway Though, there is an increasing shift from operative management (OM) to NOM of BSI; NOM of high grade injury is associated with a greater rate of failure, prolonged hospital stay, risk of delayed hemorrhage and transfusion-associated infections. Some cases with high grade BSI could be successfully treated conservatively, if clinically feasible, while some patients with lower grade injury might end-up with delayed splenic rupture. Therefore, the selection of treatment modalities for BSI should be governed by patient clinical presentation, surgeon's experience in addition to radiographic findings.
About one-fourth of the blunt abdominal trauma accounted for BSI. A high index of clinical suspicion along with radiological diagnosis helps to identify and characterize splenic injuries with high accuracy and is useful for timely decision-making to choose between OM or NOM. Careful selection of NOM is associated with high success rate with a lower rate of morbidity and mortality.
钝性脾损伤(BSI)的诊断和处理方法已大幅转向非手术治疗(NOM)。我们旨在综述目前BSI评估、诊断和处理的实践情况。
使用PubMed、MEDLINE和谷歌学术搜索引擎进行传统的叙述性文献综述。我们在1954年12月至2014年11月期间使用了关键词“创伤性脾损伤”“钝性脾外伤”“处理”。
目前大多数指南支持对血流动力学稳定的患者采用非手术治疗或微创方法。诊断方式的改进有助于外科医生决定适时的处理途径。虽然,BSI的治疗正越来越多地从手术治疗(OM)转向NOM;但高等级损伤的NOM与更高的失败率、更长的住院时间、延迟出血风险及输血相关感染有关。一些高等级BSI病例如果临床可行可成功保守治疗,而一些低等级损伤患者可能最终出现延迟性脾破裂。因此,BSI治疗方式的选择应依据患者临床表现、外科医生经验及影像学检查结果。
约四分之一的钝性腹部创伤为BSI。高度的临床怀疑加上影像学诊断有助于准确识别和描述脾损伤,对在OM和NOM之间及时做出选择的决策很有用。谨慎选择NOM与高成功率及较低的发病率和死亡率相关。