Background A widespread shift to non-operative management (NOM) for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries has been observed in most centers worldwide. Furthermore, many countries introduced safety measures to systematically reduce severe traffic and leisure sports injuries. This study aims to evaluate the effect of these nationwide implementations on individual patient characteristics and outcomes through a time-trend analysis over 17 years in an Austrian high-volume trauma center. Methods A retrospective review of all emergency trauma patients admitted to the Medical University of Innsbruck from 2000 to 2016. Injury severity, clinical data on admission, operative and non-operative treatment parameters, complications, and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Results In total, 731 patients were treated with blunt hepatic and/or splenic injuries. Among these, 368 had a liver injury, 280 splenic injury, and 83 combined hepatic/splenic injury. Initial NOM was performed in 82.6% of all patients (93.5% in hepatic and 71.8% in splenic injuries) with a success rate of 96.7%. The secondary failure rate of NOM was 3.3% and remained consistent over 17 years ( p = 0.515). In terms of injury severity, we observed a reduction over time, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 4.8% and 3.5% in the NOM group (decreasing from 7.5 to 1.9% and from 5.6 to 1.3%, respectively). These outcomes confirmed an improved utilization of the NOM approach. Conclusion Our cohort represents one of the largest Central European single-center experiences available in the literature. NOM is the standard of care for blunt hepatic and splenic injuries and successful in > 96% of all patients. This rate was quite constant over 17 years ( p = 0.515). Overall, national and regional safety measures resulted in a significantly decreased severity of observed injury patterns and deaths due to blunt hepatic or splenic trauma. Although surgery is nowadays only applied in about one third of splenic injury patients in our center, these numbers might further decrease by intensified application of interventional radiology and modern coagulation management. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13017-019-0249-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives Non-operative management (NOM) is increasingly utilised in blunt abdominal trauma. The 1994 American Association of Surgery of Trauma grading (1994-AAST) is applied for clinical decision-making in many institutions. Recently, classifications incorporating contrast extravasation such as the CT severity index (CTSI) and 2018 update of the liver and spleen AAST were proposed to predict outcome and guide treatment, but validation is pending. Methods CT images of patients admitted 2000–2016 with blunt splenic and hepatic injury were systematically re-evaluated for 1994/2018-AAST and CTSI grading. Diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for prediction of in-hospital mortality. Correlation with treatment strategy was assessed by Cramer V statistics. Results Seven hundred and three patients were analysed, 271 with splenic, 352 with hepatic and 80 with hepatosplenic injury. Primary NOM was applied in 83% of patients; mortality was 4.8%. Comparing prediction of mortality in mild and severe splenic injuries, the CTSI (3.1% vs. 10.3%; diagnostic accuracy = 75.4%; DOR = 3.66; p = 0.006) and 1994-AAST (3.3% vs. 10.5%; diagnostic accuracy = 77.9%; DOR = 3.45; p = 0.010) were more accurate compared with the 2018-AAST (3.4% vs. 8%; diagnostic accuracy = 68.2%; DOR = 2.50; p = 0.059). In hepatic injuries, the CTSI was superior to both AAST classifications in terms of diagnostic accuracy (88.7% vs. 77.1% and 77.3%, respectively). CTSI and 2018-AAST correlated better with the need for surgery in severe vs. mild hepatic (Cramer V = 0.464 and 0.498) and splenic injuries (Cramer V = 0.273 and 0.293) compared with 1994-AAST (Cramer V = 0.389 and 0.255; all p < 0.001). Conclusions The 2018-AAST and CTSI are superior to the 1994-AAST in correlation with operative treatment in splenic and hepatic trauma. The CTSI outperforms the 2018-AAST in mortality prediction. Key Points • Non-operative management of blunt abdominal trauma is increasingly applied and correct patient stratification is crucial. • CT-based scoring systems are used to assess injury severity and guide clinical decision-making, whereby the 1994 version of the American Association of Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) is currently most commonly utilised. • Including contrast media extravasation in CT-based grading improves management and outcome prediction. While the 2018-AAST classification and the CT-severity-index (CTSI) better correlate with need for surgery compared to the 1994-AAST, the CTSI is superior in outcome-prediction to the 2018-AAST.

SummaryBackgroundNon-operative management (NOM) of blunt hepatic and splenic injuries has become popular in haemodynamically stable adult patients, despite uncertainty about efficacy, patient selection, and details of management. Up-to-date strategies and practical recommendations are presented.MethodsA selective literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (1989–2016).ResultsNo randomized clinical trial was found. Non-randomized controlled trials and large retrospective and prospective series dominate. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses are available. NOM of selected patients with blunt liver and spleen injuries is associated with low morbidity and mortality. Only data of limited evidence are available on intensity and duration of patient monitoring, repeat imaging, antithrombotic prophylaxis and return to normal activity. There is high-level evidence on early mobilisation and post-splenectomy vaccination.ConclusionNOM of blunt liver or spleen injuries is a worldwide trend, but the literature does not provide high-grade evidence for this strategy.

Background: Stress hyperglycemia is common in trauma patients. Increasing injury severity and hemorrhage trigger hepatic gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, peripheral and hepatic insulin resistance. Consequently, we expect glucose levels to rise with injury severity in liver, kidney and spleen injuries. In contrast, we hypothesized that in the most severe form of blunt liver injury, stress hyperglycemia may be absent despite critical injury and hemorrhage. Methods: All patients with documented liver, kidney or spleen injuries, treated at a university hospital between 2000 and 2020 were charted. Demographic, laboratory, radiological, surgical and other data were analyzed. Results: A total of 772 patients were included. In liver (n = 456), spleen (n = 375) and kidney (n = 152) trauma, an increase in injury severity past moderate to severe (according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, AAST III-IV) was associated with a concomitant rise in blood glucose levels independent of the affected organ. While stress-induced hyperglycemia was even more pronounced in the most severe forms (AAST V) of spleen (median 10.7 mmol/L, p < 0.0001) and kidney injuries (median 10.6 mmol/L, p = 0.004), it was absent in AAST V liver injuries, where median blood glucose level even fell (5.6 mmol/L, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Absence of stress hyperglycemia on hospital admission could be a sign of most severe liver injury (AAST V). Blood glucose should be considered an additional diagnostic criterion for grading liver injury.

Background Treatment of hepatic and splenic injuries has significantly evolved over the past 30 years: Nonoperative management (NOM) has increasingly become standard of care for the majority of patients in specialised centres. However, patient selection and details of practical management such as time to reinitiating oral intake, duration of restricted activity, or necessity of repeated imaging are still a matter of debate. This national multicentre questionnaire study aims to give a cross-sectional overview of current management of blunt liver and splenic trauma in Austrian hospitals.

Background: Stress hyperglycemia is common in trauma patients. Increasing injury severity and hemorrhage is known to trigger hepatic gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis and also peripheral and hepatic insulin resistance. Consequently, we expect glucose levels to rise with injury severity in liver, kidney and spleen injuries. In contrast, we hypothesized that in the most severe form of blunt liver injury, stress hyperglycemia may be absent despite critical injury and hemorrhage.Methods: All patients with documented liver, kidney or spleen injuries, treated at a single, university hospital in Austria between 2000 and 2020 were charted in a register. Besides demographic, laboratory, radiological, surgical and other data were analyzed.Results: A total of 772 patients were included. In liver (n=456), spleen (n=375) and kidney (n=152) trauma, an increasing injury severity past moderate to severe (AAST III-IV) was associated with a concomitant rise in blood glucose levels independent of the affected organ. While this stress induced hyperglycemia was even more pronounced in the most severe forms (AAST V) of spleen (median 10.7 mmol/L, p<0.0001) and kidney injuries (median 10.6 mmol/L, p=0.004), it was absent in AAST V liver injuries, where median blood glucose level even fell (5.6 mmol/L, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Absence of stress hyperglycemia is a sign of most severe liver injury (AAST V) and should prompt fundamental diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Blood glucose should be considered as an additional diagnostic criterion in liver injury.

To aim this study to examine the clinical presentation, management, and Results of patients with a liver injury who applied to our hospital and review literature data. Method: Between January 2012 and December 2017, 86 patients with a traumatic liver injury who were followed up and/or operated by us were included in this study. Demographic data of the patients, type of trauma, vital signs in the hospital application, laboratory and imaging data, degree of organ damage, accompanying organ damage, intensive care and hospital stay, need for blood product replacement, treatment method, surgical technique in patients who need operative treatment, the morbidity and mortality rates were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Of the 86 patients in our study, 50 (58.1%) had blunt trauma, and 36 (41.8%) had penetrated trauma. The severity of the liver injury was evaluated according to AAST criteria by computed tomography; 14 patients with grade-I, 39 patients with grade-II, 21 patients with grade-III, 5 patients with grade-IV, 6 patients with grade-V and 1 patient with grade-VI liver injury was detected. 41 (47.6%) of the patients were treated nonoperatively, and 45 (52.3%) of them were operated. A statistically significant difference was found between the nonoperative and operative group in the vital signs and laboratory values of the patients in the first admission to the hospital (p<0,05). Conclusion:We believe that the management of patients with liver trauma should be directed by the hemodynamic state rather than the degree of liver injury. Nonoperative interventions are currently the first choices in hemodynamically stable patients due to low morbidity and mortality. In particular, in the hybrid operating rooms with endoscopic and interventional damage control techniques should be the primary procedure for hemostasis and stabilization. In hemodynamically unstable patients, control the bleeding as temporary should be considered as a life-saving option.

No abstract