Rippel Katharina, Ruhnke Hannes, Jehs Betram, Haerting Mark, Decker Josua A, Kroencke Thomas J, Scheurig-Muenkler Christian
Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
RIZ-Die Radiologen, Max-Josef-Metzger-Straße 3, 86157 Augsburg, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2024 Dec 4;13(23):7379. doi: 10.3390/jcm13237379.
: To evaluate the differences in treatment and outcomes between traumatic and atraumatic splenic lacerations. : This retrospective study included all patients with a diagnosis of splenic lacerations confirmed by computed tomography that presented from 01/2010 to 03/2023 at one tertiary hospital. The exclusion criteria included missing image data and death in the first 24 h due to extensive trauma. The etiology of the splenic laceration, demographic characteristics, and clinical parameters were recorded and evaluated as prognostic factors in therapy success and mortality. Subgroup analyses were undertaken according to the etiology of the splenic laceration and the primary treatment. The extent of splenic laceration was assessed by using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score in its latest revision (2018). : Of all 291 enrolled patients (mean age 47 ± 21 years, 204 males), 50 presented with atraumatic splenic lacerations due to different underlying causes. The occurrence of moderate and high-grade laceration differed significantly between the atraumatic and traumatic study group (45/50 [90%] vs. 139/241 [58%], < 0.001). Accordingly, the number of patients being treated conservatively differed greatly (20/50 [40%] vs. 164/241 [56%]), with a worse clinical success rate for atraumatic lacerations (75% vs. 94.5%). Atraumatic splenic injuries showed a higher conversion rate to surgery (2/20 [10%] vs. 2/164 [1%]). Despite the lower clinical success rate of splenic artery embolization (SAE) in atraumatic injuries (87% vs. 97%), the number of patients needing treatment for primary SAE in AAST 3 injuries was 14.1 in the traumatic population and only 4 in the atraumatic population. : Atraumatic splenic injuries should not be treated as traumatic splenic injuries. An early upgrade to SAE or surgery should be considered for moderate splenic injuries, and they should be evaluated by an interdisciplinary team on a case-by-case basis. However, due to the underlying multimorbidity of patients with atraumatic splenic injuries, a higher mortality is to be expected.
评估创伤性和非创伤性脾破裂在治疗及预后方面的差异。
本回顾性研究纳入了2010年1月至2023年3月期间在一家三级医院经计算机断层扫描确诊为脾破裂的所有患者。排除标准包括影像数据缺失以及因严重创伤在最初24小时内死亡。记录脾破裂的病因、人口统计学特征和临床参数,并将其作为治疗成功和死亡率的预后因素进行评估。根据脾破裂的病因和初始治疗方法进行亚组分析。脾破裂的程度采用美国创伤外科协会(AAST)最新修订版(2018年)的评分进行评估。
在所有291例纳入患者(平均年龄47±21岁,男性204例)中,50例因不同潜在病因出现非创伤性脾破裂。非创伤性和创伤性研究组中、高级别破裂的发生率差异显著(45/50 [90%] 对139/241 [58%],<0.001)。相应地,保守治疗的患者数量差异很大(20/50 [40%] 对164/241 [56%]),非创伤性破裂的临床成功率较低(75%对94.5%)。非创伤性脾损伤转为手术治疗的比例更高(2/20 [10%] 对2/164 [1%])。尽管非创伤性损伤中脾动脉栓塞术(SAE)的临床成功率较低(87%对97%),但在AAST 3级损伤中,创伤性人群中需要进行初次SAE治疗的患者数量为14.1例,而非创伤性人群中仅为4例。
非创伤性脾损伤不应被视为创伤性脾损伤。对于中度脾损伤,应考虑早期升级为SAE或手术治疗,并应由多学科团队逐例进行评估。然而,由于非创伤性脾损伤患者存在潜在的多种合并症,预计死亡率会更高。