Management of penetrating splenic trauma; is it different to the management of blunt trauma?

Abstract

Purpose

We compare the treatment and outcomes of penetrating and blunt splenic trauma at Major Trauma Centres (MTC) within the UK.

Methods

Data obtained from the national Trauma Audit Research Network database identified all eligible splenic injuries admitted to MTC within England between 01/01/17–31/12/21. Demographics, mechanism of injury, splenic injury classification, associated injuries, treatment, and outcomes were compared.

Results

Penetrating injuries accounted for 5.9 % (235/3958) of splenic injuries, compared to blunt at 94.1 % (3723/3958). Most penetrating injuries (91.5 %, 215/235) resulted from stabbing. There was a statistically significant difference in first treatment between penetrating and blunt splenic injuries (p < 0.001), but similar trends between GSW and stab injuries. Most penetrating injuries were managed conservatively (68.9 %,162/235), with 10.6 % (25/235) embolized compared to 13.2 % (491/3723) for blunt splenic injury. More penetrating injuries (20.4 %, 48/235) underwent splenectomy compared to blunt injuries (8.8 %, 326/3723). Those receiving embolization after penetrating trauma had an 8.0 % (2/25) 30-day mortality compared with blunt at 8.6 % (42/491) and compared with 2.1 % (1/48) and 12.3 % (40/326) of those who received splenectomy in the penetrating and blunt groups, respectively. 8 out of the 25 penetrating trauma patients who underwent embolisation (32.0 %) required splenectomy due to embolisation failure compared to 5.3 % (26/491) in the blunt trauma group.

Conclusion

A trend is seen towards the use of operative management in penetrating splenic trauma. There is a high splenic embolisation failure rate (32.0 %) in penetrating trauma although mortality for those embolised was similar to the blunt injury group.