title: Evidence-Based Management and Controversies in Blunt Splenic Trauma.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The study aims to describe the evidence-based management and controversies in blunt splenic trauma.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A shift from operative management to non-operative management (NOM) has occurred over the past decades where NOM has now become the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) is generally believed to increase the success rate of NOM. Not all the available evidence is that optimistic about SAE however. A morbidity specifically related to SAE of up to 47% has been reported. Although high-grade splenic injury is a prognostic factor for failure of NOM, an American research group has published a study in which NOM is performed in over half of haemodynamically stable patients with grade IV or V splenic injury without leading to an increased morbidity (in terms of complications) or mortality. Another area of current investigation in the literature is the exact indication for SAE. Although the generally accepted indication is the presence of vascular injury, a topic of current investigation is whether there might be a role for pre-emptive embolisation in patients with high-grade splenic injury. On the other hand, evidence is also emerging that not all blushes require an intervention (small blushes <1 or 1.5 cm do not). Lastly, the available evidence shows that splenic function is preserved after embolisation, and therefore, the routine administration of vaccinations seems not to be necessary. There might be a difference between proximal and distal embolisations; however, with regard to splenic function, in favour of distal embolisation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Nowadays, NOM is the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. The available evidence (although with a relatively small number of patients) shows that splenic function is preserved after NOM, a major advantage compared to splenectomy. SAE is used as an adjunct to observation in order to increase the success rate of NOM. Operative management should be applied in case of haemodynamic instability or if associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgical treatment are present. Patient selection (which patient can be safely treated non-operatively, does every blush needs to be embolised?, which patients might be better off with direct operative intervention given the patient and injury characteristics) is an ongoing subject of further research. Future studies should also focus on long-term outcomes of patients treated with embolisation (e.g. total number of lifetime infectious episodes requiring antibiotic treatment or hospital admission, quality of life).
authors.affiliation: Trauma Unit, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
authors.forename: D C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Olthof
authors.affiliation: Division of Trauma Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, 3079 DZ Rotterdam, Netherlands.
authors.forename: C H
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: van der Vlies
authors.affiliation: Trauma Unit, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Goslings
keywords: Blunt abdominal trauma; Embolisation; Non-operative management; Splenic function; Splenic injury