TY - JOUR
T1 - Follow-up strategies for patients with splenic trauma managed non-operatively
T2 - the 2022 World Society of Emergency Surgery consensus document
AU - Podda, Mauro
AU - De Simone, Belinda
AU - Ceresoli, Marco
AU - Virdis, Francesco
AU - Favi, Francesco
AU - Wiik Larsen, Johannes
AU - Coccolini, Federico
AU - Sartelli, Massimo
AU - Pararas, Nikolaos
AU - Beka, Solomon Gurmu
AU - Bonavina, Luigi
AU - Bova, Raffaele
AU - Pisanu, Adolfo
AU - Abu-Zidan, Fikri
AU - Balogh, Zsolt
AU - Chiara, Osvaldo
AU - Wani, Imtiaz
AU - Stahel, Philip
AU - Di Saverio, Salomone
AU - Scalea, Thomas
AU - Soreide, Kjetil
AU - Sakakushev, Boris
AU - Amico, Francesco
AU - Martino, Costanza
AU - Hecker, Andreas
AU - de’Angelis, Nicola
AU - Chirica, Mircea
AU - Galante, Joseph
AU - Kirkpatrick, Andrew
AU - Pikoulis, Emmanouil
AU - Kluger, Yoram
AU - Bensard, Denis
AU - Ansaloni, Luca
AU - Fraga, Gustavo
AU - Civil, Ian
AU - Tebala, Giovanni Domenico
AU - Di Carlo, Isidoro
AU - Cui, Yunfeng
AU - Coimbra, Raul
AU - Agnoletti, Vanni
AU - Sall, Ibrahima
AU - Tan, Edward
AU - Picetti, Edoardo
AU - Litvin, Andrey
AU - Damaskos, Dimitrios
AU - Inaba, Kenji
AU - Leung, Jeffrey
AU - Maier, Ronald
AU - Biffl, Walt
AU - Leppaniemi, Ari
AU - Moore, Ernest
AU - Gurusamy, Kurinchi
AU - Catena, Fausto
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the members of the Board of Directors of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) for the crucial contribution in the development of the Consensus.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Background: In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery published its guidelines for the management of adult and pediatric patients with splenic trauma. Several issues regarding the follow-up of patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM remained unsolved. Methods: Using a modified Delphi method, we sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the NOM of splenic trauma and reach a consensus among a group of 48 international experts from five continents (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, America) concerning optimal follow-up strategies in patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM. Results: Consensus was reached on eleven clinical research questions and 28 recommendations with an agreement rate ≥ 80%. Mobilization after 24 h in low-grade splenic trauma patients (WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) was suggested, while in patients with high-grade splenic injuries (WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), if no other contraindications to early mobilization exist, safe mobilization of the patient when three successive hemoglobins 8 h apart after the first are within 10% of each other was considered safe according to the panel. The panel suggests adult patients to be admitted to hospital for 1 day (for low-grade splenic injuries—WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) to 3 days (for high-grade splenic injuries—WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), with those with high-grade injuries requiring admission to a monitored setting. In the absence of specific complications, the panel suggests DVT and VTE prophylaxis with LMWH to be started within 48–72 h from hospital admission. The panel suggests splenic artery embolization (SAE) as the first-line intervention in patients with hemodynamic stability and arterial blush on CT scan, irrespective of injury grade. Regarding patients with WSES Class II blunt splenic injuries (AAST Grade III) without contrast extravasation, a low threshold for SAE has been suggested in the presence of risk factors for NOM failure. The panel also suggested angiography and eventual SAE in all hemodynamically stable adult patients with WSES Class III injuries (AAST Grades IV–V), even in the absence of CT blush, especially when concomitant surgery that requires change of position is needed. Follow-up imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound/CT scan in 48–72 h post-admission of trauma in splenic injuries WSES Class II (AAST Grade III) or higher treated with NOM was considered the best strategy for timely detection of vascular complications. Conclusion: This consensus document could help guide future prospective studies aiming at validating the suggested strategies through the implementation of prospective trauma databases and the subsequent production of internationally endorsed guidelines on the issue.
AB - Background: In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery published its guidelines for the management of adult and pediatric patients with splenic trauma. Several issues regarding the follow-up of patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM remained unsolved. Methods: Using a modified Delphi method, we sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the NOM of splenic trauma and reach a consensus among a group of 48 international experts from five continents (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, America) concerning optimal follow-up strategies in patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM. Results: Consensus was reached on eleven clinical research questions and 28 recommendations with an agreement rate ≥ 80%. Mobilization after 24 h in low-grade splenic trauma patients (WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) was suggested, while in patients with high-grade splenic injuries (WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), if no other contraindications to early mobilization exist, safe mobilization of the patient when three successive hemoglobins 8 h apart after the first are within 10% of each other was considered safe according to the panel. The panel suggests adult patients to be admitted to hospital for 1 day (for low-grade splenic injuries—WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) to 3 days (for high-grade splenic injuries—WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), with those with high-grade injuries requiring admission to a monitored setting. In the absence of specific complications, the panel suggests DVT and VTE prophylaxis with LMWH to be started within 48–72 h from hospital admission. The panel suggests splenic artery embolization (SAE) as the first-line intervention in patients with hemodynamic stability and arterial blush on CT scan, irrespective of injury grade. Regarding patients with WSES Class II blunt splenic injuries (AAST Grade III) without contrast extravasation, a low threshold for SAE has been suggested in the presence of risk factors for NOM failure. The panel also suggested angiography and eventual SAE in all hemodynamically stable adult patients with WSES Class III injuries (AAST Grades IV–V), even in the absence of CT blush, especially when concomitant surgery that requires change of position is needed. Follow-up imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound/CT scan in 48–72 h post-admission of trauma in splenic injuries WSES Class II (AAST Grade III) or higher treated with NOM was considered the best strategy for timely detection of vascular complications. Conclusion: This consensus document could help guide future prospective studies aiming at validating the suggested strategies through the implementation of prospective trauma databases and the subsequent production of internationally endorsed guidelines on the issue.
KW - Consensus
KW - Conservative treatment
KW - Diagnostic imaging
KW - Embolization
KW - Follow-up
KW - Nonoperative management
KW - Spleen
KW - Trauma
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139765025&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85139765025&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13017-022-00457-5
DO - 10.1186/s13017-022-00457-5
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36224617
AN - SCOPUS:85139765025
SN - 1749-7922
VL - 17
JO - World Journal of Emergency Surgery
JF - World Journal of Emergency Surgery
IS - 1
M1 - 52
ER -