Use of a refined operative strategy in combination with the multidisciplinary approach to manage blunt juxtahepatic venous injuries.

BACKGROUND: Despite continuous advances in traumatology, juxtahepatic venous injuries are still the most difficult and deadly form of liver trauma. Most deaths result from exsanguination, and reported mortality ranges from 50% to 80%. This is an evaluation on our experience with the management of this high mortality injury following a refined operative strategy. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients sustaining blunt juxtahepatic venous injuries. The management for these patients was mainly a refined operative strategy combined with a multidisciplinary approach. Preoperative conditions and the patient demographics were gathered. In addition, the number and type of interventional procedures, overall complications, and operative procedures were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: From January, 1996 to March, 2004, 19 patients (M:F = 13:6) with juxtahepatic venous injuries were included and all were managed operatively. The operative procedures included hepatectomy by finger fracture technique for direct repair (8), perihepatic packing (1), packing and hepatic artery embolization (1), packing and hepatic artery ligation (1), hepatorrhaphy and packing (5), packing followed by hepatectomy (2) and atriocaval shunt for direct repair (1). The survival rate for the packing group was higher than that of the direct repair group (75% versus 45%), but was not statistically significant (p = 0.352). Injury to the retrohepatic vena cava influenced the patient's survival significantly (p = 0.041). The overall survival was 58% (11/19). CONCLUSION: A well-defined operative strategy helps surgeons deal with the problem of blunt juxtahepatic venous injury, and its combination with multidisciplinary management will improve patient outcomes.

Use of splenic artery embolization as an adjunct to nonsurgical management of blunt splenic injury.

BACKGROUND: Splenic artery embolization (SAE) has been used as an adjunct to the nonsurgical treatment of blunt splenic injuries since 1981. It is imperative to define the role of SAE in the management of splenic trauma and to establish a guideline for its use. METHODS: In this study, 39 consecutive patients with blunt splenic ruptures were evaluated. All the patients were treated according to the authors' protocol, which included SAE as an adjunct. Angiographic study was performed for patients with any of the following presentations: recurrent hypotension despite fluid resuscitation, significant hemoperitoneum or extravasation of contrast media on computed tomography, grade 4 or 5 splenic injury, or progressive need for blood transfusion. Laparotomy was reserved for patients with unstable hemodynamics or failure of SAE. RESULTS: Four patients were excluded from the study, and 6 of the 35 remaining patients (male-to-female ratio, 22:13) received SAE. One of the six SAE patients underwent operation because of persistent hemorrhage after SAE. Nonoperative treatment was successful for 31 patients. Splenic artery embolization increased the success rate for nonsurgical management from 74% (26 of 35 patients) to 89% (31 of 35 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Judicious use of SAE for patients with blunt splenic injury avoids unnecessary surgery and expands the number of patients who can retain their spleen.