ABSTRACT
AIM: Nonoperative management (NOM) has revolutionized the care of blunt hepatic trauma patients. The aim of the present study was to identify and evaluate the predictors of NOM of these patients. METHODS: The Trauma Registry data of 55 consecutive adult patients admitted with blunt hepatic trauma over a 4-year period was reviewed. Patients were divided into immediately operated (OP-group) and selected for NOM (NOM-group). Factors analyzed were: demographics, injury mechanism, initial vital signs, liver injury grade, concomitant injuries, and total injury severity scoring systems. RESULTS: Concomitant abdominal trauma, high Injury Severity Score (ISS), low International Classification of Diseases 9(th) revision Injury Severity Score (ICISS), and low probability of survival (Ps) were predictors for operative management. Compared to NOM-patients (66%, N=36), OP-patients (34%, N=19) suffered more frequently concomitant abdominal injuries (84.2% vs 47.2%, P=0.004) and were more severely totally injured as expressed by higher ISS (25 vs 20, P=0.01), lower ICISS (0.51 vs 0.74, P=0.003), and lower Ps (0.81 vs 0.98, P=0.005). NOM resulted in lower intensive care unit admission and mortality rates (47.2% vs 78.9%, P=0.002 and 2.7% vs 15.8%, P=0.03, respectively). NOM-success rate was 92%. CONCLUSION: NOM of blunt hepatic trauma is safe and efficient. Concomitant abdominal trauma, ISS, ICISS, and Ps are predictors for operative or nonoperative management.
Subject(s)
Liver/injuries , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/therapy , Abdominal Injuries/diagnosis , Adult , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Female , Glasgow Coma Scale , Humans , Injury Severity Score , International Classification of Diseases , Male , Multiple Trauma/diagnosis , Patient Selection , Prognosis , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/diagnosis , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/mortality , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES: Non-operative management (NOM) has revolutionized the care of blunt hepatic and splenic trauma patients. The objective of this study is to evaluate treatment of such patients in a Greek level I trauma centre, to identify factors that are important for selecting them for NOM and to investigate for predictors of NOM failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed the Trauma Registry data of 96 consecutive adult patients admitted with blunt liver and/or splenic injuries over a 4-year period. RESULTS: Immediately operated patients (32.3%) had lower diastolic arterial pressure (p = 0.02), lower International Classification of Diseases -9th revision Injury Severity Score (ICISS) (p = 0.01), and a higher grade of splenic injury (p = 0.002) than NOM patients. NOM success rate was 80%. No predictors of NOM failure were found ; however, isolated splenic trauma patients failed NOM more frequently than hepatic patients (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: NOM of adult blunt hepatic and splenic trauma patients is safe and efficient. Haemodynamic stability, ICISS and the grade of splenic injury are important for selecting these patients for NOM while splenic trauma patients need more intense observation.
