Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CVIR Endovascular logoLink to CVIR Endovascular
. 2023 Dec 16;6:62. doi: 10.1186/s42155-023-00414-6

A systematic review assessing incorporation of prophylactic splenic artery embolisation (pSAE) into trauma guidelines for the management of high-grade splenic injury

Warren Clements 1,2,3,✉, Mark Fitzgerald 2,3,4, S Murthy Chennapragada 5,6, Joseph Mathew 2,3,4, Christopher Groombridge 2,3,4, Ee Jun Ban 3,7, Matthew W Lukies 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC10725392  PMID: 38103054

Abstract

Background

Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has become a vital strategy in the modern landscape of multidisciplinary trauma care, improving splenic salvage rates in patients with high-grade injury. However, due to a lack of prospective data there remains contention amongst stakeholders as to whether SAE should be performed at the time of presentation (prophylactic or pSAE), or whether patients should be observed, and SAE only used only if a patient re-bleeds. This systematic review aimed to assess published practice management guidelines which recommend pSAE, stratified according to their quality.

Methods

The study was registered and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched by the study authors. Identified guidelines were graded according to the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.

Results

Database and internet searches identified 1006 results. After applying exclusion criteria, 28 guidelines were included. The use of pSAE was recommended in 15 guidelines (54%). This included 6 out of 9 guidelines that were high quality (66.7%), 4 out of 9 guidelines that were moderate quality (44.4%), and 3 out of 10 (30%) guidelines that were low quality, p = 0.275.

Conclusions

This systematic review showed that recommendation of pSAE is more common in guidelines which are of high quality. However, there is vast heterogeneity of recommended practice guidelines, likely based on individual trauma systems rather than the available evidence. This reflects biases with interpretation of data and lack of multidisciplinary system inputs, including from interventional radiologists.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42155-023-00414-6.

Keywords: Systematic review, splenic, trauma, Guideline, Embolization

Background

The spleen is the most frequently injured abdominal organ after blunt trauma [1]. Splenic injury is commonly graded using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) splenic injury scale, where high-grade injury is defined as AAST IV or V injury [2]. Conservative management of high-grade injury has reported re-bleed rates of as high as 75% in adults [3]. As a part of modernisation of multidisciplinary treatment, splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has become a vital treatment strategy in improving the rate of spleen preservation (aka splenic salvage) in patients with high-grade injury [4], and its use is thus increasing [1].

However, due to a lack of prospective data there remains contention amongst stakeholders as to whether SAE should be performed at the time of presentation (prophylactic or pSAE), or whether patients should be observed and SAE or splenectomy used only if a patient re-bleeds, according to haemodynamics and local resources [5, 6]. The only randomised and controlled trial to date comparing pSAE or a strategy of initial observation, showed no difference in mortality between the groups (0% vs 0.8%). However, the authors showed that pSAE resulted in 100% splenic salvage compared to an observation-first approach of 93.7%, where 32.3% of patients required SAE due to re-bleeding. The authors showed that pSAE resulted in shorter median hospital length of stay (9 vs 13 days) and fewer complications (29.2% vs 41.5%) [6]. Based on this and retrospective studies across the globe [7–12], splenic salvage of AAST IV and V injury in stable patients should be at least 90% at a major trauma centre as a minimum quality benchmark, and pSAE is an effective treatment to achieve this [1, 6, 13].

It is an accepted management practice that when heterogeneity exists in decision-making, agreeing on a treatment guideline has a role in fostering efficient workflow [14]. In many hospitals, guidelines now exist for almost all procedures. Publication of robust guidelines from major and/or notable organisations has immense value as they provide expert-based guidance (ideally based on high-level evidence) on which individual hospitals can mould their daily practice [15]. However, as evidence is available to all, the basis of major decision-making in guidelines should theoretically be similar [16, 17]. However, many institutions continue to propose management approaches based on their own preferences, team structure, and/or interpretation of the available data [18–42].

This study aimed to systematically review existing published splenic trauma management guidelines and assess whether they recommend pSAE in stable patients with high-grade injury, based on the overall guideline quality.

Methods

Registration

The study was registered on the PROSPERO database (record number CRD42023440729) and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Data identification and collection

Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched by the study authors based against the PICO format (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome), using the following MeSH terms: “Embolization, Therapeutic/methods”[MeSH], “Abdominal Injuries/therapy”[MeSH], “wounds and injuries [MeSH]”, “Embolization, Therapeutic”[MeSH], “splenic artery” [MeSH], “spleen” [MeSH]. The following additional keywords were searched: trauma, embolization, embolisation, angioembolization, angioembolisation, guideline, protocol, pathway, nonoperative, NOM.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Enrolled publications included practice management guidelines from any organisation, for example societies, colleges, government bodies, and hospitals. This included publications where splenic treatment guidelines were presented even if the intention of the study was not specifically to discuss the guideline. All studies within the last 20 years were included (1 January 2003 to 1 January 2023). Duplicate studies were excluded. Studies in the paediatric population were excluded given evidence on trauma management in this context is not comparable to adult populations [43]. Studies were also excluded when they were not in English (n = 3), or when the full text could not be obtained (n = 1).

Guideline quality

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument has been formulated specifically to assist with development and appraisal of guidelines to ensure that clinicians can measure a guideline’s quality before implementing it in daily use [15]. Guidelines were independently evaluated by 2 study investigators (WC and ML) using the 2017 update of the AGREE-II instrument [44] and included grading against 6 different domains. Studies were then graded for quality as high, moderate, or low. Studies were graded as high when they scored greater than or equal to 60% of the maximum score in 3 or more domains, including domain 3 (rigour of development). Studies were graded moderate when they scored greater than or equal to 60% of the maximum score in 3 or more domains, but not including domain 3. Studies were scored as low when they scored less than 60% in 2 or more domains and less than 50% in domain 3. This determination was according to precedent from previous similar studies which have used this tool [43, 45].

Outcomes

The primary outcome was to assess whether the study recommended the use of pSAE after high grade splenic trauma in stable patients, defined as embolisation (either proximal or distal) for splenic injury of AAST grade IV or V, regardless of the presence of a vascular lesion (active bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, or pseudoaneurysm), in stable patients. Secondary outcomes included stratification of the guideline quality and recommendations according to the type of institution authoring the guideline as well as the region of origin.

Statistical analysis

Numerical data were presented as percentage when calculated using the AGREE-II instrument, or number (percentage). Where relevant, assessment for differences of proportion between high, moderate, and low-quality guidelines was performed using the Chi Square test in Stata (Version 17.0-BE, StataCorp, Texas, USA). Probability values of less than 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Search results were identified from the initial query including 951 from databases plus an additional 55 from Google Scholar. After applying exclusion criteria, a total of 28 published guidelines were included in the analysis as shown in Fig. 1. This included 5 guidelines from medical societies, 1 from a government institution, and 22 from individual hospital networks. The majority of the guidelines were from Europe and Asia (9 each, 32%), followed by North America (8, 29%) and Australia (2, 7%).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram of study selection

Table 1 shows the assessment of guideline quality, where 9 studies were of high quality, 9 studies of moderate quality, and 10 of low quality. As shown in Table 2, 27 out of 28 studies recommended the use of SAE in the management of splenic trauma, the only exception being the study from Koca et al. which did not mention embolisation in their flow chart or text, however, did allude to the concept elsewhere in the document without it being specifically mentioned [36]. In terms of the primary study endpoint, 15 guidelines (54%) recommended pSAE for high-grade injury. This included 6 out of 9 guidelines that were high quality (66.7%), 4 out of 9 guidelines that were moderate quality (44.4%), and 3 out of 10 (30%) guidelines that were low quality, p = 0.275.

Table 1.

Assessment of guideline quality according to the AGREE-II instrument. All scores shown as a percentage of the maximum score

Author Scope and Purpose Stakeholder involvement Rigour of development Clarity of presentation Applicability Editorial independence Overall assessmenta
Coccolini et al. [18] 100 53 72 100 66 100 High
Bhullar et al. [19] 86 61 68 75 62 100 High
Stassen et al. [16] 100 69 79 92 86 100 High
Rowell et al. [17] 94 72 75 97 84 100 High
Watson et al. [20] 86 50 64 86 44 95 High
Hameed et al. [21] 100 78 77 94 98 68 High
Cheatham et al. [22] 89 28 73 92 64 36 High
Lin et al. [23] 89 44 65 86 54 95 High
Van Der Cruyssen et al. [24] 83 25 75 83 76 68 High
Tugnoli et al. [25] 75 50 57 67 58 86 Moderate
Gilmore et al. [26] 94 64 56 97 58 50 Moderate
Clements et al. [1] 81 42 58 69 86 100 Moderate
Wu et al. [27] 83 39 55 92 68 68 Moderate
Wu et al. [28] 81 28 58 92 62 95 Moderate
Girard et al. [29] 86 28 50 83 66 100 Moderate
Kanlerd et al. [30] 92 47 56 92 78 100 Moderate
Lee et al. [31] 83 25 53 89 48 91 Moderate
Romeo et al. [32] 67 11 51 58 60 91 Moderate
Mitsusada et al. [33] 58 22 52 69 50 73 Low
Frandon et al. [34] 94 31 42 64 60 100 Low
Singh et al. [35] 61 22 43 78 76 59 Low
Koca et al. [36] 50 14 46 56 58 64 Low
Cameron et al. [37] 19 8 25 81 16 32 Low
Ruscelli et al. [38] 39 22 41 36 40 73 Low
El-Matbouly et al. [39] 47 28 42 83 44 100 Low
Brillantino et al. [40] 89 53 47 56 52 100 Low
Chakraverty et al. [41] 58 28 41 36 60 68 Low
University of Colorado [42] 42 6 22 72 30 36 Low
Open in a new tab

aOverall quality assessment determined according to the following

High: > = 60% in > = 3 domains including domain 3 (rigour of development)

Moderate: > = 60% in 3 domains not including domain 3

Low: < 60% in > = 2 domains and domain 3 < 50%

Table 2.

Summary of the guideline contents including inclusion of prophylactic splenic artery embolisation

Author Quality assessmenta Year Digital Object Identifier or Link Location Institution of lead authorb Recommends prophylactic splenic artery embolisationc
Coccolini et al. [18] High 2017 https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13017-017-0151-4 United Kingdom Society Yes
Bhullar et al. [19] High 2017 https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000001366 United States Hospital Yes
Stassen et al. [16] High 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0b013e3182702afc United States Society Yes
Rowell et al. [17] High 2017 https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000001323 United States Society Yes
Watson et al. [20] High 2015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-015-0520-1 United States Hospital Yes
Hameed et al. [21] High 2019 http://www.phsa.ca/Documents/Trauma-Services/Spleen%2008%20Full%20CPG%20for%20download.pdf Canada Society No, only if vascular lesion
Cheatham et al. [22] High 2015 https://surgicalcriticalcare.net/Guidelines/Blunt%20splenic%20injury%202,015.pdf United States Hospital Yes
Lin et al. [23] High 2022 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09531-0 Taiwan Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Van Der Cruyssen et al. [24] High 2016 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7 Belgium Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Tugnoli et al. [25] Moderate 2015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-014-1084-0 Italy Hospital Yes
Gilmore et al. [26] Moderate 2022 https://www.canberrahealthservices.act.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0006/2074623/Splenic-Trauma.docx Australia Government Yes
Clements et al. [1] Moderate 2020 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-020-00185-4 Australia Hospital Yes
Wu et al. [27] Moderate 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000313480707300915 Taiwan Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Wu et al. [28] Moderate 2008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9322-x Taiwan Hospital No, only if vascular lesion and isolated splenic injury
Girard et al. [29] Moderate 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.005 France Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Kanlerd et al. [30] Moderate 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.09.006 Thailand Hospital Yes
Lee et al. [31] Moderate 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/1024907918773202 South Korea Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Romeo et al. [32] Moderate 2020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-020-02177-2 Italy Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Mitsusada et al. [33] Low 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/ams2.37 Japan Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Frandon et al. [34] Low 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.010 France Hospital Yes
Singh et al. [35] Low 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v9.i4.155 India Hospital Yes
Koca et al. [36] Low 2013 https://doi.org/10.5505/tjtes.2013.89411 Turkey Hospital No
Cameron et al. [37] Low 2013 https://books.google.com.au/books?id = FM6fDQAAQBAJ United States Hospital Yes
Ruscelli et al. [38] Low 2017 https://www.annaliitalianidichirurgia.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/06_2648blocco.pdf Italy Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
El-Matbouly et al. [39] Low 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2015.08.001 Qatar Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Brillantino et al. [40] Low 2016 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-015-0575-z Italy Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Chakraverty et al. [41] Low 2012 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0339-7 United Kingdom Society No, only if vascular lesion
University of Colorado [42] Low 2018 https://medschool.cuanschutz.edu/docs/librariesprovider74/trauma-and-acute-care-surgery-pdfs/trauma-protocols/spleen-trauma-2018.pdf?sfvrsn = e32141b9_2 United States Hospital No, only if vascular lesion
Open in a new tab

aAccording to the classification in Table 1

bDefined as the affiliation of the authors, either hospital, society, college, or government

cDefined as whether the guideline recommends prophylactic embolisation of high grade splenic trauma (AAST IV or V) regardless of the presence of a vascular lesion

Table 3 shows the demographics of high-quality guidelines and compares them to moderate and low-quality guidelines. High quality guidelines were more commonly published by societies (44.4% vs 0% vs 10%) while both moderate and low-quality guidelines were more likely to be published by hospitals (55.6% vs 88.9% vs 90.0%), p = 0.074. In addition, high-quality guidelines were more likely to arise from the North American continent (66.7% vs 0% vs 20%) while both moderate and low-quality guidelines were more likely to arise from Europe (22.2% vs 33.3% vs 40%) or Asia (11.1% vs 44.4% vs 40%), p = 0.030. High, moderate, and low-quality guidelines were of similar likelihood to be published in the last 5 years (55.6% vs 55.6% vs 30%, p = 0.430).

Table 3.

Demographics of splenic artery embolisation guidelines according to quality

High quality guidelinesa Moderate quality guidelinesa Low quality guidelines p-value
Total number 9 9 10 N/A
Published within the last 5 years (number, percentage) 5 (55.6%) 5 (55.6%) 3 (30.0%) 0.430
Institution of lead authorb (number, percentage)

Society: 4 (44.4%)

Hospital: 5 (55.6%)

Government: 0 (0%)

Society: 0 (0%)

Hospital: 8 (88.9%)

Government: 1 (11%)

Society: 1 (10.0%)

Hospital: 9 (90.0%)

Government: 0 (0%)

 0.074
Continent of origin (number, percentage)

Europe: 2 (22.2%)

Asia: 1 (11.1%)

North America: 6 (66.7%)

Australia: 0 (0%)

Europe: 3 (33.3%)

Asia: 4 (44.4%)

North America: 0 (0%)

Australia: 2 (22.2%)

Europe: 4 (40%)

Asia: 4 (40%)

North America: 2 (20%)

Australia:0 (0%)

 0.030
Recommends prophylactic splenic artery embolisationc (number, percentage) 6 (66.7%) 4 (44.4%) 3 (30.0%) 0.275
Open in a new tab

aAccording to the classification in Table 1

bDefined as the affiliation of the authors, either hospital, society, college, or government

cDefined as whether the guideline recommends routine embolisation of high grade splenic trauma (AAST IV or V) regardless of the presence of a vascular lesion

Discussion

This systematic review identified 28 guidelines on the treatment of blunt splenic injury in adults and of these, only 9 were of high quality according to the AGREE-II instrument. The incorporation of pSAE was seen in 54% which is modest, despite the available evidence [6–12].

In terms of the primary outcome, high-quality guidelines had a higher incorporation of pSAE (66.7%) and while the difference between high, moderate, and low-quality was not statistically significant, it is likely due to a type 2 error from a small sample. High-quality guidelines were also more likely to be written by societies while moderate and low-quality guidelines were more likely written by individual hospitals. Societies may be more likely to consider the value of their brand endorsement, and thus likely to consider the importance of stakeholder engagement and input during development. High-quality guidelines were also likely to arise from North America, however this may be confounded as this was also the location of many leading trauma societies, and the origin of the AGREE-II Enterprise. This may reflect the matured systems of trauma within a continent where trauma has a high prevalence. The authors strongly recommend that anyone who develops or updates a clinical practice guideline considers the AGREE-II instrument, or other similarly validated tools, to ensure that the standard of their recommendations are transparent and robust. From the results of this study, it is felt unlikely that any of the guidelines have specifically used such tools.

Only 5 societies worldwide have chosen to publish a guideline, and some are well overdue for modernisation. An example is the guideline from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Society of Europe (CIRSE), the largest IR society in the world. The current guideline is now over 10 years old and devoid of robust evidence, detail, clarity, and applicability [41], not in keeping with the quality usually seen from such an influential organisation. The low overall uptake of pSAE will be improved if IRs and IR societies such as CIRSE and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), take a larger role in the governance of trauma, integrating themselves in trauma networks, and aligning themselves with local IR and trauma societies in different regions. It is also recommended that societies with sufficient infrastructure consider developing and regularly updating guidelines to remain relevant with constantly changing literature.

In general, most guidelines performed poorest in describing their stakeholder engagement (even those which were high quality), rarely involving a patient advocate, and often missing input from a wider multidisciplinary team. This opens the guideline to bias with reader interpretation and thus implementation of the recommendations. While this may have been acceptable in the early days of trauma which was typically run by surgical specialties, modern trauma management involves centralised, co-ordinated, tertiary care and involves a range of key stakeholders including emergency, surgery, interventional radiology, diagnostic radiology, anaesthetics, intensive care, and many others. In general, guidelines also performed generally poorly on applicability, often presenting an ideal pathway, but omitting measures to ensure that it is feasible, ways to overcome challenges to feasibility, costs, and auditing. It should be acknowledged that some studies presenting a guideline as a smaller component of a wider clinical investigation may not have felt the need to describe their guideline development in detail, and they were still included in this analysis. However, the robust development of a guideline has direct relevance on the downstream utility and it should be encouraged that authors present this vital data moving forward.

The domain of clarity of presentation had a somewhat dichotomous result. Those that published a clear and relevant flow chart and/or used an executive summary at the beginning generally scored highly. However, those that described their treatment without a specific chart scored lower. In addition, editorial independence was generally transparent through mandated reporting standards in journals. Those that did not publish their guideline in a journal often did not choose to voluntarily report any potential conflicts of interest.

A major component of the interpretation bias of guidelines is the failure for treatment pathways to adequately consider splenic function and instead place a weighted focus on mortality as the only endpoint [4]. This is also in part because it is difficult to measure treatment success in trauma and most studies in this context are retrospective with several inherent biases, leading to scepticism of results and lack of applicability of approaches where trauma systems aren’t replicable [6, 8]. In addition to these challenges, interventional radiology is still a young specialty, and as such training and governance structures vary significantly between different hospitals, regions, and countries [5]. This means that access to expert skills with appropriate training is also not universal.

Given SAE was mentioned in all guidelines, trauma networks should endeavour to include a sustainable IR service to be involved in the management of major trauma. This should involve expansion of the current IR workforce so that smaller hospitals have timely IR services available, or for patients to be sent to a centre with resources to prioritise splenic salvage in addition to mortality prevention. The benefits of salvage are vast and include the avoidance of a laparotomy with associated morbidity, prevention of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), reduced need for future vaccinations, reduced need for future prophylactic antibiotics, and cost savings to the individual and society [46–49].

The authors acknowledge that this study is limited by the interpretation and assessment of guideline quality and while this is an objective validated tool, still requires individual interpretation. In addition, guidelines published within a clinical cohort study may not have provided the full breadth of information to allow for their interpretation as discussed earlier. However, the authors chose to present all guidelines rather than limit the analysis to purely those from major societies given the very small sample. The statistical analysis in Table 3 is also based on a small sample. The guidelines also cross the 2018 update to the AAST injury grading criteria [2] and this may theoretically affect management decisions moving forward for those with an earlier guideline based on the 1994 AAST definitions. There is also variation in how stakeholders may view and define “prophylactic embolisation” with differing opinions on the relative importance of parenchymal injury and vascular lesions.

Conclusions

This systematic review showed that recommendation of pSAE is more common in guidelines which are of high quality. However, there is vast heterogeneity of recommended practice guidelines, likely based on individual trauma systems. This reflects biases with interpretation of data, and lack of multidisciplinary system inputs from IRs. More societies should publish guidelines, ensuring they are high-quality by conforming to existing validated reporting standards. Centres or countries which do not have the infrastructure to support pSAE are encouraged to embed IR within their trauma governance structure and overcome barriers to implementation to improve quality of care, rather than using a self-generated treatment algorithm which may not provide their patients with the established short- and long-term benefits of splenic salvage.

Supplementary Information

42155_2023_414_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2.9MB, tif)

Additional file 1: Supplement 1. Database search terms and results.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge all staff in the Department of Radiology, Department of Trauma, and the National Trauma Research Institute.

Abbreviations

IR

Interventional radiology

AAST

American association for the surgery of trauma

SAE

Splenic artery embolisation

pSAE

Prophylactic splenic artery embolisation

OR

Odds ratio

AGREE-II

Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II

PRISMA

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PICO

Patient, intervention, comparator, outcome

CIRSE

Cardiovascular and interventional society of europe

SIR

Society of interventional radiology

OPSI

Overwhelming post-splenectomy infection

Authors’ contributions

WC and ML (2 authors) were involved in study design, data analysis, and writing. MF, SMC, JM, CG, and EJB (5 authors) were involved in study design, data analysis and editing of the manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for additional information.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

For this type of manuscript, ethics committee approval and formal patient consent is not required.

Consent for publication

For this type of manuscript, ethics committee approval and formal patient consent is not required.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Clements W, Joseph T, Koukounaras J, Goh GS, Moriarty HK, Mathew J, Phan TD. SPLEnic salvage and complications after splenic artery EmbolizatioN for blunt abdomINal trauma: the SPLEEN-IN study. CVIR Endovasc. 2020;3(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s42155-020-00185-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kozar RA, Crandall M, Shanmuganathan K, Zarzaur BL, Coburn M, Cribari C, Kaups K, Schuster K, Tominaga GT. AAST patient assessment committee. Organ injury scaling 2018 update: spleen, liver, and kidney. Journal of trauma and acute care. Surgery. 2018;85(6):1119–1122. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Olthof DC, Van der Vlies CH, Goslings JC. Evidence-based management and controversies in blunt splenic trauma. Curr Trauma Rep. 2017;3:32–37. doi: 10.1007/s40719-017-0074-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Clements W, Moriarty HK, Koukounaras J. Splenic artery embolisation in trauma: it is time to stand alone as its own treatment. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43(11):1720–1721. doi: 10.1007/s00270-020-02593-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hughes J, Scrimshire A, Steinberg L, Yiannoullou P, Newton K, Hall C, Pearce L, Macdonald A. Interventional radiology service provision and practice for the management of traumatic splenic injury across the regional trauma networks of England. Injury. 2017;48(5):1031–1034. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.02.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Arvieux C, Frandon J, Tidadini F, Monnin-Bares V, Foote A, Dubuisson V, Lermite E, David JS, Douane F, Tresallet C, Lemoine MC. Effect of prophylactic embolization on patients with blunt trauma at high risk of splenectomy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(12):1102–1111. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Banerjee A, Duane TM, Wilson SP, Haney S, O’Neill PJ, Evans HL, Como JJ, Claridge JA. Trauma center variation in splenic artery embolization and spleen salvage: a multicenter analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(1):69–75. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182988b3b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schnüriger B, Martens F, Eberle BM, Renzulli P, Seiler CA, Candinas D. Treatment practice in patients with isolated blunt splenic injuries: a survey of Swiss traumatologists. Unfallchirurg. 2013;116:47–52. doi: 10.1007/s00113-011-2044-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Capecci LM, Jeremitsky E, Smith RS, Philp F. Trauma centers with higher rates of angiography have a lesser incidence of splenectomy in the management of blunt splenic injury. Surgery. 2015;158(4):1020–1026. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.05.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lavanchy JL, Delafontaine L, Haltmeier T, Bednarski P, Schnüriger B, Registry ST. Increased hospital treatment volume of splenic injury predicts higher rates of successful non-operative management and reduces hospital length of stay: a Swiss trauma Registry analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;1:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01582-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Harbrecht BG, Ko SH, Watson GA, Forsythe RM, Rosengart MR, Peitzman AB. Angiography for blunt splenic trauma does not improve the success rate of nonoperative management. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2007;63(1):44–49. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3180686531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chastang L, Bège T, Prudhomme M, Simonnet AC, Herrero A, Guillon F, Bono D, Nini E, Buisson T, Carbonnel G, Passebois L. Is non-operative management of severe blunt splenic injury safer than embolization or surgery? Results from a French prospective multicenter study. J Visc Surg. 2015;152(2):85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2015.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rong JJ, Liu D, Liang M, Wang QH, Sun JY, Zhang QY, Peng CF, Xuan FQ, Zhao LJ, Tian XX, Han YL. The impacts of different embolization techniques on splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mil Med Res. 2017;4:1–2. doi: 10.1186/s40779-017-0125-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schaekermann M, Beaton G, Habib M, Lim A, Larson K, Law E. Understanding expert disagreement in medical data analysis through structured adjudication. Proc ACM Human-Comput Interact. 2019;3:1–23. doi: 10.1145/3359178. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dans AL, Dans LF. Appraising a tool for guideline appraisal (the AGREE II instrument) J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(12):1281–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stassen NA, Bhullar I, Cheng JD, Crandall ML, Friese RS, Guillamondegui OD, Jawa RS, Maung AA, Rohs TJ, Jr, Sangosanya A, Schuster KM. Selective nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury: an eastern Association for the Surgery of trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(5):S294–S300. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182702afc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rowell SE, Biffl WL, Brasel K, Moore EE, Albrecht RA, DeMoya M, Namias N, Schreiber MA, Cohen MJ, Shatz DV, Karmy-Jones R. Western trauma association critical decisions in trauma: management of adult blunt splenic trauma—2016 updates. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(4):787–793. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Coccolini F, Montori G, Catena F, Kluger Y, Biffl W, Moore EE, Reva V, Bing C, Bala M, Fugazzola P, Bahouth H. Splenic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines for adult and pediatric patients. World J Emerg Surg. 2017;12:1–26. doi: 10.1186/s13017-017-0151-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bhullar IS, Tepas JJ, III, Siragusa D, Loper T, Kerwin A, Frykberg ER. To nearly come full circle: nonoperative management of high-grade IV–V blunt splenic trauma is safe using a protocol with routine angioembolization. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(4):657–664. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Watson GA, Hoffman MK, Peitzman AB. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury: what is new? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;41:219–228. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0520-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hameed M, Butterworth S, Goecke M, Mihailovic A, Robbins N, Wilson H, Hawes H, Evans D. Trauma services British Columbia. Specialist trauma advisory . Clinical practice guideline for the management of Blunt Splenic Injury in adults 16 years of age or older [internet]. 2023. Available from: http://www.phsa.ca/Documents/Trauma-Services/Spleen%2008%20Full%20CPG%20for%20download.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2023.
  • 22.Cheatham ML, Gratzon AC. Algorithm for the evaluation and Management of Blunt Splenic Injury [internet]. 2023. Available from: https://surgicalcriticalcare.net/Guidelines/Blunt%20splenic%20injury%202015.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2023.
  • 23.Lin BC, Wu CH, Wong YC, Chen HW, Fu CJ, Huang CC, Wu CT, Hsieh CH. Splenic artery embolization changes the management of blunt splenic injury: an observational analysis of 680 patients graded by the revised 2018 AAST-OIS. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(1):371–381. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09531-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Van der Cruyssen F, Manzelli A. Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous. World J Emerg Surg. 2016;11(1):1–4. doi: 10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tugnoli G, Bianchi E, Biscardi A, Coniglio C, Isceri S, Simonetti L, Gordini G, Di Saverio S. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury in adults: there is (still) a long way to go. The results of the Bologna-Maggiore hospital trauma center experience and development of a clinical algorithm. Surg Today. 2015;45:1210–1217. doi: 10.1007/s00595-014-1084-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gilmore L. Canberra health services guideline: splenic injury management guidelines for adults [internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.canberrahealthservices.act.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0006/2074623/Splenic-Trauma.docx. Accessed 14 Sept 2023.
  • 27.Wu SC, Chow KC, Lee KH, Tung CC, Yang AD, Lo CJ. Early selective angioembolization improves success of nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury. Am Surg. 2007;73(9):897–902. doi: 10.1177/000313480707300915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wu SC, Chen RJ, Yang AD, Tung CC, Lee KH. Complications associated with embolization in the treatment of blunt splenic injury. World J Surg. 2008;32:476–482. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9322-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Girard E, Abba J, Cristiano N, Siebert M, Barbois S, Létoublon C, Arvieux C. Management of splenic and pancreatic trauma. J Visc Surg. 2016;153(4):45–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kanlerd A, Auksornchart K, Boonyasatid P. Non-operative management for abdominal solidorgan injuries: a literature review. Chin J Traumatol. 2022;25(5):249–256. doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lee MA, Yu B, Lee J, Choi KK, Park JJ, Park Y, Han A, Gwak J, Lee GJ. Comparison of outcomes before and after establishing a regional trauma center and following a protocol to treat blunt splenic injury in South Korea: a retrospective study. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2018;25(6):343–349. doi: 10.1177/1024907918773202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Romeo L, Bagolini F, Ferro S, Chiozza M, Marino S, Resta G, Anania G. Laparoscopic surgery for splenic injuries in the era of non-operative management: current status and future perspectives. Surg Today. 2021;51:1075–1084. doi: 10.1007/s00595-020-02177-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mitsusada M, Nakajima Y. Protocol for splenic salvage procedures in this era of non-operative management. Acute Med Surg. 2014;1(4):200–206. doi: 10.1002/ams2.37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Frandon J, Arvieux C, Thony F. Indications for embolization in a French level 1 trauma center. J Visc Surg. 2016;153(4):25–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Singh A, Kumar A, Kumar P, Kumar S, Gamanagatti S. “Beyond saving lives”: current perspectives of interventional radiology in trauma. World J Radiol. 2017;9(4):155. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v9.i4.155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Koca B, Topgül K, Yürüker SS, Çınar H, Kuru B. Non-operative treatment approach for blunt splenic injury: is grade the unique criterion?. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2013;19(4):337–42. 10.5505/tjtes.2013.89411. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 37.Cameron JL, Cameron AM. Current surgical therapy E-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016. 29 Nov 2016. Available from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=FM6fDQAAQBAJ.
  • 38.Ruscelli P, Buccoliero F, Mazzocato S, Belfiori G, Rabuini C, Sperti P, Rimini M. Blunt hepatic and splenic trauma. A single center experience using a multidisciplinary protocol. Ann Ital Chir. 2017;88(2):129–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.El-Matbouly M, Jabbour G, El-Menyar A, Peralta R, Abdelrahman H, Zarour A, Al-Hassani A, Al-Thani H. Blunt splenic trauma: assessment, management and outcomes. Surgeon. 2016;14(1):52–58. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2015.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Brillantino A, Iacobellis F, Robustelli U, Villamaina E, Maglione F, Colletti O, De Palma M, Paladino F, Noschese G. Non operative management of blunt splenic trauma: a prospective evaluation of a standardized treatment protocol. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42:593–598. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0575-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chakraverty S, Flood K, Kessel D, McPherson S, Nicholson T, Ray CE, Robertson I, van Delden OM. CIRSE guidelines: quality improvement guidelines for endovascular treatment of traumatic hemorrhage. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:472–482. doi: 10.1007/s00270-012-0339-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.University of Colorado School of Medicine. Guideline for Management of Spleen Trauma [internet]. 2023. Available from: https://medschool.cuanschutz.edu/docs/librariesprovider74/traumaand-acute-care-surgery-pdfs/trauma-protocols/spleen-trauma-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=e32141b9_2. Accessed 14 Sept 2023.
  • 43.Yanchar N, Tardif PA, Freire G, Bérubé M, Stelfox HT, Beaudin M, Stang A, Beno S, Weiss M, Labrosse M, Zemek R. Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric solid organ injury care: a systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023;95(3):442–450. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–E842. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Johnston A, Kelly SE, Hsieh SC, Skidmore B, Wells GA. Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:64–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Clements W, Mathew J, Fitzgerald MC, Koukounaras J. Splenic artery embolization after delayed splenic rupture following blunt trauma: is nonoperative management still an option in this cohort? J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021;32(4):586–592. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2020.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yip H, Skelley A, Morphett L, Mathew J, Clements W. The cost to perform splenic artery embolisation following blunt trauma: analysis from a level 1 Australian trauma Centre. Injury. 2021;52(2):243–247. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.09.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Slater SJ, Lukies M, Kavnoudias H, Zia A, Lee R, Bosco JJ, Joseph T, Clements W. Immune function and the role of vaccination after splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury. Injury. 2022;53(1):112–115. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lukies M, Zia A, Kavnoudias H, Bosco JJ, Narita C, Lee R, Joseph T, Clements W. Immune function after splenic artery embolization for blunt trauma: long-term assessment of CD27+ IgM B-cell levels. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2022;33(5):505–509. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2022.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

42155_2023_414_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2.9MB, tif)

Additional file 1: Supplement 1. Database search terms and results.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for additional information.

Articles from CVIR Endovascular are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES