Embolization versus Surgery for Stabilized Patients with Solid Organ Injury

Abstract

Purpose: To compare embolization with laparotomy for the management of hemodynamically unstable patients with solid organ injury who responded to initial resuscitation.

Materials and methods: Data from a Japanese nationwide trauma registry were analyzed. Included were hemodynamically unstable patients (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg and blood transfusion within the first 24 hours) whose initial computed tomography assessment confirmed the presence of solid organ injuries (liver and/or spleen). A total of 224 patients were included (median age: 53 years, interquartile range: 32-69; 73.3% male; liver injury = 131 [58%] and spleen injury = 98 [44%]; median organ injury scale: 3, interquartile range: 3-4; median injury severity score: 19, interquartile range: 16-25). Patients who underwent embolization were compared with those who underwent laparotomy. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival. The data were evaluated using a propensity score matching analysis.

Results: Laparotomy and embolization were performed in 133 (59.1%) and 91 (40.4%) patients, respectively. Of those, 111 (84%) and 84 (92%) patients achieved in-hospital survival after laparotomy and embolization, respectively. No significant difference in in-hospital survival (P = .053) was noted. The propensity score matching model did not reveal a significant difference in in-hospital survival (P = .276).

Conclusions: No significant difference was observed between embolization and laparotomy in terms of in-hospital survival among unstable patients who responded to initial resuscitation with solid organ injury.