BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the estimated incidence of pseudoaneurysm (PSA) with follow-up computed tomography (CT) for adult splenic injury with nonoperative management (NOM).
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Central, CINAHL, Clinical Trials, and ICTRP databases between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023. Quality assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool. Adult splenic injury patients who were initially managed with NOM and followed-up by protocolized CT were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed PSA. Secondary outcome measures were delayed angiography and delayed splenectomy. Subgroup analyses were performed between NOM patients without initial splenic angioembolization (SAE) and NOM patients with initial SAE.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were enrolled, including 11 retrospective studies and one prospective study, with 1746 patients in total. The follow-up CT rate in the included patients was 94.9%. The estimated incidence of PSA was 14% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8%-21%). The estimated delayed angiography and delayed splenectomy incidence rates were 7% (95% CI, 4%-12%) and 2% (95% CI, 1%-6%), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the estimated PSA incidence was 12% in NOM patients without initial SAE (95% CI, 7%-20%) and was also 12% in NOM patients with SAE (95% CI, 5%-24%).
CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incidence of delayed PSA after follow-up CT for adult splenic injury with NOM was 14%. The estimated incidence of PSA in NOM with initial SAE was similar to that in NOM without initial SAE.

Splenic injury due to colonoscopy is rare, but has high mortality. While historically treated conservatively for low-grade injuries or with splenectomy for high-grade injuries, splenic artery embolisation is increasingly utilised, reflecting modern treatment guidelines for external blunt trauma. This systematic review evaluates outcomes of published cases of splenic injury due to colonoscopy treated with splenic artery embolisation.
A systematic review was performed of published articles concerning splenic injury during colonoscopy treated primarily with splenic artery embolisation, splenectomy, or splenorrhaphy from 1977 to 2022. Datapoints included demographics, past surgical history, indication for colonoscopy, delay to diagnosis, treatment, grade of injury, splenic artery embolisation location, splenic preservation (salvage), and mortality.
The 30 patients treated with splenic artery embolisation were of mean age 65 (SD 9) years and 67% female, with 83% avoiding splenectomy and 6.7% mortality. Splenic artery embolisation was proximal to the splenic hilum in 81%. The 163 patients treated with splenectomy were of mean age 65 (SD 11) years and 66% female, with 5.5% mortality. Three patients treated with splenorrhaphy of median age 60 (range 59-70) years all avoided splenectomy with no mortality. There was no difference in mortality between splenic artery embolisation and splenectomy cohorts (p = 0.81).
Splenic artery embolisation is an effective treatment option in splenic injury due to colonoscopy. Given the known benefits of splenic salvage compared to splenectomy, including preserved immune function against encapsulated organisms, low cost, and shorter hospital length of stay, embolisation should be incorporated into treatment pathways for splenic injury due to colonoscopy in suitable patients.

Blunt abdominal solid organ injury is common and is often managed nonoperatively. Clinicians must balance risk of both hemorrhage and thrombosis. The optimal timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) initiation in this population is unclear. The objective was to evaluate early (< 48 h) compared to late initiation of VTEp in adult trauma patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injury managed nonoperatively.
Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 2021. Studies comparing timeframes of VTEp initiation were considered. The primary outcome was failure of nonoperative management (NOM) after VTEp initiation. Secondary outcomes included risk of transfusion, other bleeding complications, risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and mortality.
Ten cohort studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 4642 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of failure of NOM among patients receiving early VTEp (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01-3.05, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in risk of transfusion. Odds of DVT were significantly lower in the early group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.59, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82-2.75, p = 0.19). All studies were at serious risk of bias due to confounding.
Initiation of VTEp earlier than 48 h following hospitalization is associated with an increased risk of failure of NOM but a decreased risk of DVT. Absolute failure rates of NOM are low. Initiation of VTEp at 48 h may balance the risks of bleeding and VTE.

BACKGROUND: Trauma remains the leading cause of mortality in the pediatric population. Penetrating thoracic injuries can result in devastating trauma to multiple organ systems. When these injuries occur, prompt diagnosis and swift treatment of internal organ injury are of utmost importance.
METHODS: A 13-year-old male presented to our Trauma Center after sustaining a gunshot wound (GSW) to the left chest. Despite his hemodynamic stability on presentation, CT scan revealed multiple injuries including splenic and renal lacerations. Exploratory laparotomy resulted in splenectomy, but no intervention was performed for the renal laceration. Instead, clinical monitoring alone was sought. Patient was discharged on hospital day 13 in stable condition.
CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric penetrating injuries secondary to GSWs can impact multiple organ systems. Despite hemodynamic stability on presentation, adequate staging of internal damage with CT allowed a targeted approach. In our case, non-operative management of the renal injury was implemented after hemorrhage control of his additional injuries. Failure to have done so would have inevitably complicated his overall management and made kidney salvage not feasible.
CONCLUSIONS: Prompt diagnosis and treatment are required in order to prevent significant morbidity and mortality in the pediatric patient from GSW-mediated penetrating thoracic injuries. Despite hemodynamic stability on presentation, patients should be emergently assessed for severe injury, with immediate surgical management as needed. Failure to do so could lead to rapid clinical deterioration, and inability to enact other conservative measures that lead to positive outcomes.

Over the past decades, the treatment for blunt splenic injuries has shifted from operative to non-operative management. Interventional radiology such as splenic arterial embolisation generally increases the success rate of non-operative management. However, the type of intervention, such as the first definitive treatment for haemostasis (interventional radiology or surgery) in blunt splenic injuries is unclear. Therefore, we aim to clarify whether interventional radiology improves mortality in patients with blunt splenic trauma compared with operative management by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
We will search the following electronic bibliographic databases to retrieve relevant articles for the literature review: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include controlled trials and observational studies published until September 2018. We will screen search results, assess the study population, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Two review authors will extract data independently, and discrepancies will be identified and resolved through a discussion with a third author where necessary. Data from eligible studies will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test and the I² statistic, and any observed heterogeneity will be quantified using the I² statistic. We will conduct sensitivity analyses according to several factors relevant for the heterogeneity.
Our study does not require ethical approval as it is based on the findings of previously published articles. This systematic review will provide guidance on selecting a method for haemostasis of splenic injuries and may also identify knowledge gaps that could direct further research in the field. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at relevant conferences.
CRD42018108304.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of abdominal solid organ injuries has shifted towards non-operative management (NOM). However, the feasibility of NOM for penetrating splenic trauma is unclear and outcome is believed to be worse than NOM for penetrating liver and kidney injuries. Hence, the aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the feasibility of selective NOM in penetrating splenic injury.
METHODS: A review of literature was performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on adult patients treated by NOM for splenic injuries were included and outcome was documented and compared.
RESULTS: Five articles from exclusively level-1 and level-2-traumacenters were selected and a total of 608 cases of penetrating splenic injury were included. Nonoperative management was applied in 123 patients (20.4%, range 17-33%). An overall failure rate of NOM of 18% was calculated. Mortality was not seen in patients selected for nonoperative management. Contra-indicatons for NOM included hemodynamic instability, absence of abdominal CT-scanning to rule out concurrent injuries and peritonitis.
CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that non-operative management for penetrating splenic trauma in highly selected patients has been utilized in several well-equipped and experienced trauma centers. NOM of penetrating splenic injury in selected patients is not associated with increased morbidity nor mortality. Data on the less well-equipped and experienced trauma centers are not available. More prospective studies are required to further define exact selection criteria for non-operative management in splenic trauma.

Splenic injury following endoscopy is a rare but potentially fatal complication. While this has been found to occur more frequently after colonoscopy, splenic injury following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains highly uncommon since its first reported case in 1989. Indeed, there have been only 19 such cases reported in the English, German, and Spanish literature collectively over the past 27 years. We report on a 59-year-old woman who developed a peri-splenic haematoma diagnosed on abdominal computed tomography the day following ERCP and stenting for Mirizzi syndrome. The patient was treated conservatively and made a full recovery. We reviewed all cases of post-ERCP splenic injuries reported to date and discuss the published opinions on the likely mechanism of injury, predisposing factors, presenting features, investigation, and treatment options. Ultimately, patient outcome relies on clinical suspicion of this rare complication following ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Infectious mononucleosis (IM) is a common viral illness that predominantly causes sore throat, fever and cervical lymphadenopathy in adolescents and young adults. Although usually a benign, self-limiting disease, it is associated with a small risk of splenic rupture, which can be life-threatening. It is common practice therefore to advise avoiding vigorous physical activity for at least 4-6 weeks, however this is not based on controlled trials or national guidelines. We reviewed published case reports of splenic rupture occurring in the context of IM in an attempt to ascertain common factors that may predict who is at risk.
METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed for case reports or series published between 1984 and 2014. In total, 52 articles or abstracts reported 85 cases. Data was extracted and compiled into a Microsoft Excel(®) spreadsheet.
RESULTS: The average patient age was 22 years, the majority (70%) being male. The average time between onset of IM symptoms and splenic rupture was 14 days, with a range up to 8 weeks. There was a preceding history of trauma reported in only 14%. Abdominal pain was the commonest presenting complaint of splenic rupture, being present in 88%. 32% were successfully managed non-operatively, whereas 67% underwent splenectomy. Overall mortality was 9%.
CONCLUSIONS: From our data, it appears that men under 30 within 4 weeks of symptom onset are at highest risk of splenic rupture, therefore particular vigilance in this group is required. As cases have occurred up to 8 weeks after the onset of illness, we would recommend avoidance of sports, heavy lifting and vigorous activity for 8 weeks. Should the patient wish to return to high risk activities prior to this, an USS should be performed to ensure resolution of splenomegaly. The majority of cases reviewed had no preceding trauma, although previous studies have suggested this may be so minor as to go unnoticed by the patient. It is therefore prudent to warn patients about the symptoms of splenic rupture to ensure prompt presentation and minimise treatment delay rather than focusing purely on activity limitation.

BACKGROUND: Splenic injury as a result of colonoscopy is rare but may be underreported and cases may remain undetected.
METHODS: Review of the literature and analysis of 93 cases, including a new case report.
RESULTS: Neither a history of abdominal surgery nor performance of a biopsy seems related to an increased incidence of splenic injury. However, a number of colonoscopy-related factors, such as difficulty intubating, looping of the instrument, and traction on the splenocolic ligament, lead to capsular avulsions and lacerations of the spleen. In addition, excess external pressure on the left hypochondrium can simulate blunt trauma, and other maneuvers can increase traction at the splenic flexure. In the majority of cases, symptoms develop within 24 hours of the colonoscopy. Computed tomography scan provides the most sensitive and specific method of diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of colonoscopies continues to increase with the aging population, increasing the potential number of associated splenic injuries. The physician needs to have a high index of suspicion when a patient presents after colonoscopy with abdominal pain associated with hemodynamic instability. Abdominal pain within 24 hours is the most reliable indicator and requires further workup and monitoring. Persistent hemodynamic instability mandates operative management.