BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the management of blunt hepatic injury has considerably changed. Three options are available as follows: nonoperative management (NOM), transarterial embolization (TAE), and surgery. We aimed to evaluate in a systematic review the current practice and outcomes in the management of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury.
METHOD: The MEDLINE database was searched using PubMed to identify English-language citations published after 2000 using the key words blunt, hepatic injury, severe, and grade III to V in different combinations. Liver injury was graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma classification on computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome analyzed was success rate in intention to treat. Critical appraisal of the literature was performed using the validated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence "Quality Assessment for Case Series" system.
RESULTS: Twelve articles were selected for critical appraisal (n = 4,946 patients). The median quality score of articles was 4 of 8 (range, 2-6). Overall, the median Injury Severity Score (ISS) at admission was 26 (range, 0.6-75). A median of 66% (range, 0-100%) of patients was managed with NOM, with a success rate of 94% (range, 86-100%). TAE was used in only 3% of cases (range, 0-72%) owing to contrast extravasation on CT with a success rate of 93% (range, 81-100%); however, 9% to 30% of patients required a laparotomy. Thirty-one percent (range, 17-100%) of patients were managed with surgery owing to hemodynamic instability in most cases, with 12% to 28% requiring secondary TAE to control recurrent hepatic bleeding. Mortality was 5% (range, 0-8%) after NOM and 51% (range, 30-68%) after surgery.
CONCLUSION: NOM of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury is the first treatment option to manage hemodynamically stable patients. TAE and surgery are considered in a highly selective group of patients with contrast extravasation on CT or shock at admission, respectively. Additional standardization of the reports is necessary to allow accurate comparisons of the various management strategies.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.