Evidence Hub

Assessing associated factors for failure of nonoperative management in pediatric blunt liver and spleen injuries: a secondary analysis of the SHIPPs study

Shunichiro Nakao, Morihiro Katsura, Masayuki Yagi, Hiroshi Ogura, Jun Oda

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2024

8 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of pediatric patients who underwent nonoperative management (NOM) for blunt splenic and hepatic injuries and to explore factors associated with NOM failure. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study of pediatric patients with blunt liver and spleen injuries in Japan. Participants included pediatric trauma patients aged 16 years or younger between 2008 and 2019 with NOM, which was defined as no surgery provided within 6 h of hospital arrival. NOM failure, defined as abdominal surgery performed after 6 h of hospital arrival, was the primary outcome. Descriptive statistics were provided and exploratory analysis to assess the associations with outcome using logistic regression. During the study period, 1339 met our eligibility criteria. The median age was 9 years, with a majority being male. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 10. About 14.0% required transfusion within 24 h, and 22.3% underwent interventional radiology procedures. NOM failure occurred in 1.0% of patients and the in-hospital mortality was 0.7%. Factors associated with NOM failure included age, positive focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST), contrast extravasation on computed tomography (CT), severe liver injury, concomitant pancreas injury, concomitant gastrointestinal injury, concomitant mesenteric injury, and ISS. In our study, NOM failure were rare. Older age, positive FAST, contrast extravasation on CT,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free