You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 138 No. 8, August 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Paper
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (34)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Gastrointestinal/ Upper Foregut
 •Emergency Medicine
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Nonoperative Treatment of Blunt Injury to Solid Abdominal Organs

A Prospective Study

George C. Velmahos, MD; Konstantinos G. Toutouzas, MD; Randall Radin, MD; Linda Chan, PhD; Demetrios Demetriades, MD

Arch Surg. 2003;138:844-851.

Hypothesis  Nonoperative management (NOM) of injuries to the liver, spleen, and kidney is highly successful, as shown in retrospective studies, but needs prospective validation. Patients in whom NOM is likely to fail can be identified by specific criteria.

Design  Prospective observational study.

Setting  Academic level I trauma center at a county hospital.

Patients  Two hundred six patients with injuries to the liver (n = 99), spleen (n = 103), and/or kidney (n = 40).

Main Outcome Measures  Failure of NOM.

Results  Fifty-seven patients (28%) underwent immediate operation; among the other 149, NOM failed in 33 (22%). The rate of failure for spleen injury (34%) was higher than for liver (17%) or kidney injury (18%) (P<.01). Failure of NOM was due to delayed bleeding from a solid viscus in 20 of the 33 patients. Intestinal injury was detected in only 1 patient initially selected for NOM. Specifically among patients with liver injury, no failure was due to delayed bleeding from the liver. Patients with failed NOM were more likely to have a positive abdominal ultrasonographic finding (61% vs 22%; P<.01), a grade of splenic injury of at least III on computed tomographic scan (CT) (n = 20 [17%] vs n = 16 [48%]; P<.01), and an amount of free fluid of greater than 300 mL on CT (36% vs 8%; P<.01) and to receive blood transfusions during NOM (58% vs 16%; P<.01). The groups were not different with regard to associated extra-abdominal injuries (including head injuries). Mortality was not different, but morbidity was marginally higher in patients with failed NOM (29% vs 45%; P = .08). We identified the following 4 independent risk factors of failure by means of stepwise logistic regression: nonliver (splenic or renal) injury, positive abdominal ultrasonography findings, amount of free fluid on CT of greater than 300 mL, and need for blood transfusion. According to a statistical model, the presence of all 4 independent risk factors predicted NOM failure in 96% of the patients, and the absence of all predicted success in 98%.

Conclusions  In a prospective study, the rate of NOM failure for solid abdominal organ injuries is higher than the rates reported in retrospective studies. Nonoperative management is less likely to fail in liver injuries than in splenic or kidney injuries. Use of NOM should be exercised with caution if blood transfusion is needed, fluid is identified on the screening ultrasonogram, or a significant quantity of blood is discovered on CT.


From the Division of Trauma and Critical Care, Department of Surgery (Drs Velmahos, Toutouzas, and Demetriades), and the Department of Radiology (Dr Radin), University of Southern California, and the Department of Biostatistics (Dr Chan), Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center (Drs Velmahos, Toutouzas, Radin, and Demetriades), Los Angeles, Calif.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

This Month in Archives of Surgery
Arch Surg. 2003;138(8):821.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis following inadvertent extensive splenic artery embolisation for trauma
HAMERS et al.
Br. J. Radiol. 2009;82:e11-e14.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Safety of Early Mobilization of Patients With Blunt Solid Organ Injuries
London et al.
Arch Surg 2008;143:972-976.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Percutaneous Injection Therapy for Blunt Splenic Trauma Guided by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography
Tang et al.
J Ultrasound Med 2008;27:925-932.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Investigation of blunt abdominal trauma
Jansen et al.
BMJ 2008;336:938-942.
FULL TEXT  

Non-operative management in blunt splenic trauma
Notash et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2008;25:210-212.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Liver trauma
Ahmed and Beckingham
Trauma 2007;9:171-180.
ABSTRACT  

Nonoperative Management of Spleen and Liver Injuries
Stein and Scalea
J Intensive Care Med 2006;21:296-304.
 

Blunt Pelvic Trauma
ODLE
radtech 2006;77:200-219.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Splenic Arterial Interventions: Anatomy, Indications, Technical Considerations, and Potential Complications
Madoff et al.
RadioGraphics 2005;25:S191-S211.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Hemodynamically "Stable" Patients With Peritonitis After Penetrating Abdominal Trauma: Identifying Those Who Are Bleeding
Brown et al.
Arch Surg 2005;140:767-772.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.