No abstract

Introduction Laparotomy, embolization, and observation are described for blunt splenic injury management. This study evaluated outcomes of blunt splenic injury management based on baseline factors, splenic injury severity, and associated injuries. Methods A nine-year retrospective review was conducted of adult patients with blunt splenic injury. Collected data included demographics, injury characteristics, treatment modality, complications, and outcomes (mechanical ventilation, days on mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit [ICU] admission and length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality). Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using χ2 analysis and one-way analysis of variance for normally distributed variables and a non-parametric test of medians for variables that did not meet the assumption of normality, respectively. Results Splenic injury grade was similar between operative and embolization groups, but severe hemoperitoneum was more common in the operative group. Complications and mortality were highest in the operative group (50.7% and 26.3%, respectively) and lowest in the embolization group (5.3% and 2.6%, respectively). Operative patients required more advanced interventions (ICU admission, mechanical ventilation). There were no differences between those treated with proximal versus distal embolization. Observation carried a failure rate of 11.2%, with no failures of embolization. Conclusions Embolization patients had the lowest rates of complications and mortality, with comparable splenic injury grades to those treated operatively. Further prospective research is warranted to identify patients that may benefit from early embolization and avoidance of major abdominal surgery.

Incidental lesions of the thyroid are increasingly discovered as the prevalence of medical imaging escalates. The likelihood of malignancy must be assessed for each of these incidentalomas. The utility of the metabolic data derived from the identification of these lesions on PET/CT imaging is unclear. The overall rate of detection of thyroid incidentalomas on PET/CT is estimated at 1.5%-4.2%. However, this rate varies by the pattern of uptake. Several studies have evaluated predictive measures such as maximal standardized uptake value (SUV max ) and radiomics. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached. Given that the majority of PET/CT scans are performed in the context of malignancy, we recommend first assessing the general condition and life expectancy of patients when PET-detected thyroid incidentalomas are unveiled. We also recommend considering observation versus diagnostic workup with further imaging and/or fine-needle aspiration and cytology.

No abstract

Consensus guidelines call for complete resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma with consideration of neoadjuvant radiation for curative-intent treatment. The 15-month delay from the initial presentation of an abstract to the final publication of the STRASS trial results assessing the impact of neoadjuvant radiation led to a dilemma of how patients should be managed in the interim. This study aims to (1) understand perspectives regarding neoadjuvant radiation for RPS during this period; and (2) assess the process of integrating data into practice. A survey was distributed to international organizations including all specialties treating RPS. Eighty clinicians responded, including surgical (60.5%), radiation (21.0%) and medical oncologists (18.5%). Low kappa correlation coefficients on a series of clinical scenarios querying individual recommendations before and after initial presentation as an abstract indicate considerable change. Over 62% of respondents identified a practice change; however, most also noted discomfort in adopting changes without a manuscript available. Of the 45 respondents indicating discomfort with practice changes without a full manuscript, 28 (62%) indicated that their practice changed in response to the abstract. There was substantial variability in recommendations for neoadjuvant radiation between the presentation of the abstract and the publication of trial results. The difference in the proportion of clinicians describing comfort with changing practice based on the presentation of the abstract versus those that had done so shows that indications for proper integration of data into practice are not clear. Endeavors to resolve this ambiguity and expedite availability of practice-changing data are warranted.