Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 550 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30308.
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Acad Radiol. 2021 Nov;28 Suppl 1:S138-S147. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.11.010. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
To evaluate the utilization and efficacy of various treatments for management of adult patients with splenic trauma, highlighting the evolving role of splenic artery embolization.
The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was queried for patients who sustained splenic trauma between 2007 and 2015, excluding those with death on arrival and selected nonsplenic high-grade injuries. Patients were categorized into (1) nonoperative management (NOM), (2) embolization, (3) splenectomy, (4) splenic repair, and (5) combined treatment groups. Evaluated outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, mortality, and NOM and embolization failures.
Overall, 117,743 patients with splenic predominant trauma were included in this study. Over the 9-year study period, 85,793 (72.9%) were treated with NOM, 21,999 (18.9%) with splenectomy, 3895 (3.3%) with embolization, and 2131 (1.8%) with splenic repair. From 2007 to 2015, mortality rates declined from 7.6% to 4.7%. The rate of NOM did not significantly change over time, while embolization increased 369% (1.3%-4.8%). Failure of NOM was 4.4% in 2007 and decreased to 3.4% in 2015. Across all injury grades, NOM had the shortest LOS (8.3 days), followed by splenic repair (12.3), embolization (12.6), and splenectomy (13.8) (p < 0.001). When adjusted for various clinical factors including severity of splenic injury, mortality rates were 7.1% for splenectomy, 3.2% for embolization, and 2.5% for NOM.
Most patients with splenic-dominant blunt trauma are managed with NOM. Over time, the use of embolization has increased while open surgery has declined, and mortality has improved for all treatment methods. Compared to splenectomy, embolization is associated with shorter hospital LOS but is still used relatively infrequently.
评估各种治疗方法在成人脾外伤管理中的应用和疗效,重点介绍脾动脉栓塞治疗的作用不断演变。
从 2007 年至 2015 年期间,国家创伤数据库(NTDB)中检索出脾外伤患者,排除到达现场即死亡和特定非脾高级别损伤患者。患者分为(1)非手术治疗(NOM)组,(2)栓塞组,(3)脾切除术组,(4)脾修补术组和(5)联合治疗组。评估的结果包括住院时间(LOS)、重症监护病房 LOS、死亡率以及 NOM 和栓塞治疗失败率。
本研究共纳入 117743 例以脾损伤为主的患者。在 9 年的研究期间,85793 例(72.9%)接受了 NOM 治疗,21999 例(18.9%)接受了脾切除术,3895 例(3.3%)接受了栓塞治疗,2131 例(1.8%)接受了脾修补术。2007 年至 2015 年间,死亡率从 7.6%下降至 4.7%。NOM 使用率在这段时间内没有明显变化,而栓塞治疗的使用率则增加了 369%(1.3%-4.8%)。NOM 治疗失败率在 2007 年为 4.4%,在 2015 年降至 3.4%。在所有损伤级别中,NOM 的 LOS 最短(8.3 天),其次是脾修补术(12.3 天)、栓塞治疗(12.6 天)和脾切除术(13.8 天)(p < 0.001)。调整包括脾损伤严重程度在内的各种临床因素后,脾切除术、栓塞治疗和 NOM 治疗的死亡率分别为 7.1%、3.2%和 2.5%。
大多数脾外伤为主的患者接受 NOM 治疗。随着时间的推移,栓塞治疗的应用增加,而开放手术减少,所有治疗方法的死亡率均有所改善。与脾切除术相比,栓塞治疗的住院 LOS 较短,但仍然相对较少使用。