Interventional Radiology in Splenic Trauma: If Not Now, Then When?

Introduction: The treatment of blunt splenic injuries showed major evolutionary changes, from fundamental/ basic splenectomy to nonoperative and endovascular treatment, "catheter surgery". Currently, in Trauma Centers, splenic angioembolization is considered the first-line intervention in trauma. This article presents the Bucharest Emergency Clinical Hospital experience in the use of splenic angioembolization, a therapeutic solution in accordance with contemporary practice and literature. Methods: This retrospective study includes patients with splenic trauma by blunt mechanism, in which diagnostic / therapeutic angiography was performed, hospitalized in the Clinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest between January 2006 and December 2019. The main endpoints of the study were: post-traumatic mortality, the need for surgery (laparoscopic/classic) to resolve splenic bleeding, the number of days of hospitalization, the need for hospitalization for more than 1 day in the intensive care unit, the day when the platelet count began to increase, the evolution of laboratory parameters (hospitalization, preangiography, postangiography/embolization, discharge). A secondary endpoint of the study was the frequency of complications that did not require surgery. Results: During the mentioned period in 64 patients treated nonoperatively, diagnostic angiography was performed (27 cases, group B) or therapeutic angiography (37 cases, group A). 26.56% of cases were 55 years old (55-81 years old), the predominance of males being obvious (62.5%). The mean value of the ISS was 21.7 +- 10.4, and 71.87% of cases presented ISS 16. The mean value of the ISS was 21.7 +- 10.4, and 71.87% of cases presented ISS 16. The degree of splenic injury (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale) presented the mean value 2.95. The degree of splenic lesion was statistically significantly more severe in group A (p 0.001) and preangiography hemoglobin values were significantly lower compared to hospitalization values (p 0.001) indicating the persistence of hemorrhage. Procedural failures occurred in 4.68% of cases, with zero mortality. Conclusions: Splenic interventional radiology is a safe, effective and rational procedure. The development of therapeutic protocols is necessary to allow maximum use of this procedure.

Intraomental Splenic Implant - An Attempt of Reassessment.

The permanent risk of splenectomized patients to infectious complications, the most severe being overwhelming post splenectomy infection (OPSI), determined the search for solutions in order to diminish these evolutionary possibilities. Therefore, intraomental developsplenic autotransplantation seems to be a viable option which, according to some authors, would have beneficial effects by restoring (at least partially) the functions of the spleen. The article presents the current experience related to this procedure (principles of surgical technique, implant location, complications, post-procedural evaluation) in an attempt to bring it back to the attention of trauma / general surgery surgeons. The procedure is simple, fast and with minimal or no complications and should be applied after any post-traumatic splenectomy.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Gastrointestinal Toxicity: The Opinion of a Gastroenterologist.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently an important component of the standard first-line treatment for many neoplasms. Some guidelines recommend ICIs as adjuvant treatment. With their increased use, the incidence of associated immune-mediated adverse reactions will also increase. A significant proportion of these reactions is represented by immune-mediated diarrhea or colitis, hepatitis, and immune-mediated pancreatic damage. The present review aims to highlight the new trends related to the diagnosis and treatment of these adverse effects depending on their degree, from the perspective of the gastroenterologist. To accomplish this, a literature search was performed, and 30 publications were considered relevant (according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study [PICOS] criteria). The information about each of the three toxicities in this paper was structured in two categories such as differential diagnosis and treatment. This review aims not only to increase awareness of these side effects in the gastroenterology community but also to promote the development of new treatment guidelines with contributions from gastroenterologists.