Department of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No. 5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chang Gung University, No. 259, Wenhua 1st Rd., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Jun;50(3):809-820. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02403-9. Epub 2023 Dec 14.
This study aimed to elucidate the treatment approach for blunt splenic injuries concurrently involving the aorta. We hypothesized that non-operative management failure rates would be higher in such cases, necessitating increased hemorrhage control surgeries.
Data from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program spanning 2017 to 2019 were utilized. All patients with blunt splenic trauma were considered for inclusion. We conducted comparisons between blunt splenic trauma patients with and without thoracic or abdominal aortic injuries to identify any potential disparities in treatment.
Among the 32,051 patients with blunt splenic injuries during the study period, 752 (2.3%) sustained concurrent aortic injuries. Following 2:1 propensity score matching, it was determined that the presence of aortic injuries did not significantly affect the utilization of splenic transarterial angioembolization (TAE) (7.2% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.243) or the necessity for splenectomy or splenorrhaphy (15.3% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.853). Moreover, aortic injuries were not a significant factor contributing to TAE failure, regardless of the location or severity of the injury. Patients with simultaneous splenic and aortic injuries required more red blood cell transfusion within first 4 hours (0 ml [0, 900] vs. 0 ml [0, 650], p = 0.001) and exhibited a higher mortality rate (10.6% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.038).
This study demonstrated that patients with concurrent aortic and splenic injuries presented with more severe conditions, higher mortality rates, and extended hospital stays. The presence of aortic injuries did not substantially influence the utilization of TAE or the necessity for splenectomy or splenorrhaphy. Patients of this type can be managed in accordance with current treatment guidelines. Nonetheless, given their less favorable prognosis, they necessitate prompt and proactive intervention.
本研究旨在阐明同时涉及主动脉的钝性脾损伤的治疗方法。我们假设此类情况下非手术治疗失败率会更高,需要增加出血控制手术。
利用创伤质量改进计划(Trauma Quality Improvement Program)在 2017 年至 2019 年期间的数据。所有钝性脾损伤患者均被认为符合纳入条件。我们对伴有或不伴有胸腹部主动脉损伤的钝性脾损伤患者进行了比较,以确定治疗上是否存在差异。
在研究期间,32051 例钝性脾损伤患者中,752 例(2.3%)合并主动脉损伤。经过 2:1 倾向评分匹配后,发现主动脉损伤并不显著影响脾动脉血管造影栓塞术(TAE)的应用(7.2%对 8.7%,p=0.243)或脾切除术或脾修补术的必要性(15.3%对 15.7%,p=0.853)。此外,无论损伤的位置或严重程度如何,主动脉损伤都不是导致 TAE 失败的重要因素。同时合并脾和主动脉损伤的患者在前 4 小时内需要更多的红细胞输注(0ml[0,900]对 0ml[0,650],p=0.001),且死亡率更高(10.6%对 7.9%,p=0.038)。
本研究表明,同时合并主动脉和脾损伤的患者病情更严重,死亡率更高,住院时间更长。主动脉损伤的存在并未显著影响 TAE 的应用或脾切除术或脾修补术的必要性。此类患者可以根据当前的治疗指南进行治疗。然而,鉴于其预后较差,需要及时和积极的干预。