钝性脾损伤脾动脉栓塞术后感染、恶性肿瘤、血栓栓塞和全因死亡风险的长期随访:与脾切除术和保守治疗的比较

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf037
Jen-Fu Huang, Ling-Wei Kuo, Chih-Po Hsu, Chi-Tung Cheng, Sheng-Yu Chan, Pei-Hua Li, Szu-An Chen, Chia-Cheng Wang, Yu-San Tee, Chun-Hsiang Ou Yang, Chien-Hung Liao, Chih-Yuan Fu
{"title":"钝性脾损伤脾动脉栓塞术后感染、恶性肿瘤、血栓栓塞和全因死亡风险的长期随访:与脾切除术和保守治疗的比较","authors":"Jen-Fu Huang, Ling-Wei Kuo, Chih-Po Hsu, Chi-Tung Cheng, Sheng-Yu Chan, Pei-Hua Li, Szu-An Chen, Chia-Cheng Wang, Yu-San Tee, Chun-Hsiang Ou Yang, Chien-Hung Liao, Chih-Yuan Fu","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zraf037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-operative management, including splenic artery embolization, is preferred for blunt splenic injuries, but its long-term risks need further investigation. Long-term splenic functions were assessed in patients with blunt splenic injuries, hypothesizing that splenic artery embolization would preserve function and reduce long-term risks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse patients with blunt splenic injuries from 2004 to 2019. To balance baseline characteristics across the treatment groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used based on propensity scores. Outcomes of main interest included the incidence and cumulative infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after one year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Altogether, 18 771 patients sustained blunt splenic injuries; 8195 were eligible for inclusion. The mean age was 38.4 years, with male predominance (70.5%). Outcomes were compared between splenectomy, splenic artery embolization, and conservative treatment groups. After applying a generalized boosted model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had lower infection risks than those in the splenectomy group. The conservative treatment group had a lower malignancy risk than the splenectomy group. Patients with blunt splenic injuries who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had a lower thromboembolism risk than those who underwent splenectomies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Long-term infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks were not significantly different between the splenic artery embolization and conservative treatment groups. In contrast, patients who underwent splenectomies had increased infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks. Clinicians must be familiar with the potential long-term complications associated with the different treatment modalities for splenic injuries and provide appropriate prophylactic measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11997966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term follow-up of infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: comparison with splenectomy and conservative management.\",\"authors\":\"Jen-Fu Huang, Ling-Wei Kuo, Chih-Po Hsu, Chi-Tung Cheng, Sheng-Yu Chan, Pei-Hua Li, Szu-An Chen, Chia-Cheng Wang, Yu-San Tee, Chun-Hsiang Ou Yang, Chien-Hung Liao, Chih-Yuan Fu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjsopen/zraf037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-operative management, including splenic artery embolization, is preferred for blunt splenic injuries, but its long-term risks need further investigation. Long-term splenic functions were assessed in patients with blunt splenic injuries, hypothesizing that splenic artery embolization would preserve function and reduce long-term risks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse patients with blunt splenic injuries from 2004 to 2019. To balance baseline characteristics across the treatment groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used based on propensity scores. Outcomes of main interest included the incidence and cumulative infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after one year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Altogether, 18 771 patients sustained blunt splenic injuries; 8195 were eligible for inclusion. The mean age was 38.4 years, with male predominance (70.5%). Outcomes were compared between splenectomy, splenic artery embolization, and conservative treatment groups. After applying a generalized boosted model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had lower infection risks than those in the splenectomy group. The conservative treatment group had a lower malignancy risk than the splenectomy group. Patients with blunt splenic injuries who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had a lower thromboembolism risk than those who underwent splenectomies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Long-term infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks were not significantly different between the splenic artery embolization and conservative treatment groups. In contrast, patients who underwent splenectomies had increased infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks. Clinicians must be familiar with the potential long-term complications associated with the different treatment modalities for splenic injuries and provide appropriate prophylactic measures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJS Open\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11997966/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJS Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraf037\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraf037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:非手术治疗,包括脾动脉栓塞,是钝性脾损伤的首选治疗方法,但其长期风险有待进一步研究。评估钝性脾损伤患者的长期脾功能,假设脾动脉栓塞可以保留功能并降低长期风险。方法:采用台湾全民医保研究数据库对2004 - 2019年钝性脾损伤患者进行回顾性队列研究。为了平衡各治疗组的基线特征,根据倾向评分使用治疗加权的逆概率。主要关注的结局包括一年后的发病率和累积感染、恶性肿瘤、血栓栓塞和全因死亡风险。结果:钝性脾损伤18 771例;8195例符合纳入条件。平均年龄38.4岁,男性居多(70.5%)。结果比较脾切除术、脾动脉栓塞和保守治疗组。应用治疗加权逆概率广义增强模型后,行脾动脉栓塞或保守治疗的患者感染风险低于脾切除术组。保守治疗组恶性肿瘤发生风险低于脾切除术组。钝性脾损伤患者接受脾动脉栓塞或保守治疗的血栓栓塞风险低于接受脾切除术的患者。结论:脾动脉栓塞组与保守治疗组长期感染、恶性肿瘤、血栓栓塞、全因死亡风险无显著差异。相比之下,接受脾切除术的患者感染、恶性肿瘤、血栓栓塞和全因死亡风险增加。临床医生必须熟悉与脾损伤不同治疗方式相关的潜在长期并发症,并提供适当的预防措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-term follow-up of infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: comparison with splenectomy and conservative management.

Background: Non-operative management, including splenic artery embolization, is preferred for blunt splenic injuries, but its long-term risks need further investigation. Long-term splenic functions were assessed in patients with blunt splenic injuries, hypothesizing that splenic artery embolization would preserve function and reduce long-term risks.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse patients with blunt splenic injuries from 2004 to 2019. To balance baseline characteristics across the treatment groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used based on propensity scores. Outcomes of main interest included the incidence and cumulative infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after one year.

Results: Altogether, 18 771 patients sustained blunt splenic injuries; 8195 were eligible for inclusion. The mean age was 38.4 years, with male predominance (70.5%). Outcomes were compared between splenectomy, splenic artery embolization, and conservative treatment groups. After applying a generalized boosted model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had lower infection risks than those in the splenectomy group. The conservative treatment group had a lower malignancy risk than the splenectomy group. Patients with blunt splenic injuries who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had a lower thromboembolism risk than those who underwent splenectomies.

Conclusion: Long-term infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks were not significantly different between the splenic artery embolization and conservative treatment groups. In contrast, patients who underwent splenectomies had increased infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks. Clinicians must be familiar with the potential long-term complications associated with the different treatment modalities for splenic injuries and provide appropriate prophylactic measures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信