Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma is the preferred option in hemodynamically stable patients.

Objectives: To identify predictors for the successful non-operative management of patients with blunt splenic trauma.

Methods: The study group comprised consecutive patients admitted with the diagnosis of blunt splenic trauma to the Department of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem over a 3 year period. Prospectively recorded were hemodynamic status, computed tomography grade of splenic tear, presence and extent of extra-abdominal injury, number of red blood cell units transfused, and outcome. Hemodynamic instability and the severity of associated injuries were used to determine the need for splenectomy. Hemodynamically stable patients without an indication for laparotomy were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and monitored.

Results: There were 64 adults (45 males, mean age 30.2 years) who met the inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis the 13 patients (20.3%) who underwent immediate splenectomy were more likely to have lower admission systolic blood pressure (P = 0.001), Glasgow Coma Scale < 8 (P = 0.02), and injury to at least three extra-abdominal regions (P = 0.06). Nine of the 52 patients (17.3%) who were successfully treated non-operatively suffered from grade ≥4 splenic tear. Multivariate analysis identified admission systolic BP[1] (odds ratio 1.04) and associated injury to less than three extra-abdominal regions (OD[2] 8.03) as predictors for the success of non-operative management, while the need for blood transfusion was a strong predictor (OR 66.67) for splenectomy.

Conclusions: Admission systolic blood pressure and limited extra-abdominal injury can be used to identify patients with blunt splenic trauma who do not require splenectomy and can be safely monitored outside an ICU[3] environment. 

Objectives: To establish the impact of breast MRI on women undergoing testing in our institution.

Methods: We analyzed 82 cases that underwent MRI between January 2001 and April 2003. Analysis appraised the clinical impact of MRI testing in cases where medical summaries were available.

Results: Studies were categorized into five indications: a) screening in high risk women (n=7), b) search for primary disease in the presence of disease (n=5), c) monitoring of chemotherapy (n=2), d) postoperative assessment of tumor bed (n=9), and e) diagnostic/characterization of primary or recurrent breast cancer (n=59). Results were defined as negative, positive or no impact on clinical management. MRI testing had a positive impact in 62 cases, affecting measurable change in 9 cases. Benefit was seen in screening, diagnosis and postoperative cases. In 15 cases, MRI stimulated investigations.

Conclusion: MRI is a valuable tool in breast imaging and affects management. Further trials are necessary to define clearly the role of MRI and to ascertain whether in cases where beneficial impact on management is noted, there is ultimate impact on outcome.