Splenic Injury and Spleen Disorders (Surgical) — NOM Doctrine, AAST Grading, Embolization Arithmetic, Damage-Control Selection, OPSI Prevention and Elective Splenectomy

Definition and framing — physiology, anatomy, associated lesions

The examined doctrine is WSES: the optimal strategy keeps into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic derangement, and the associated injuries — physiology plus anatomy plus associated lesions, never anatomy alone.^[1] EAST makes it operational: nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries is now the treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable patients, irrespective of the grade of injury, patient age, or the presence of associated injuries — but only with monitoring, serial evaluation and an operating room available — while instability with peritonitis still warrants emergent operation.^[2] The stable-patient rule beside it: non-operative management is the rule for the hemodynamically stable victim, while shock with major hemoperitoneum takes prompt hemostatic splenectomy.^[3] Set the denominator honestly: 54,148 NTDB entries (2.7%) carried spleen, liver or kidney injury, and rising OIS grade tracks mortality, operative rate and charges — which is why grade stratifies but never alone decides.^[4]

Epidemiology and the centre effect — blunt versus penetrating, tertiary versus secondary

Mechanism decides the hemostasis tool: across 60,900 TQIP spleen injuries, embolization peaked at 25% of blunt grade IV disease before falling in grade V, versus 2.5% of penetrating grade III — hemostasis is predominantly surgical in penetrating trauma and angioembolization-led in blunt trauma.^[5] Place severe disease where embolization lives: among 773 New Zealand blunt spleen patients, NOM rates matched in mild and moderate injury but ran significantly higher for severe injuries in tertiary hospitals (P = 0.009) with no mortality difference — a systems argument for transfer, not a licence to observe severe injury without embolization access.^[6]

AAST grading — what the 2018 revision changed and what still predicts death

The 2018 revision upstaged disease — median grade II to III — trading sensitivity (38.0% vs 73.7%) and NPV (80.9% vs 88.2%) upward against specificity (93.5% vs 70.1%) and PPV (67.5% vs 46.7%) downward for splenectomy: better at predicting salvage, worse at predicting who needs the knife.^[7] The European validation (703 patients, 83% primary NOM, 4.8% mortality) ranks the tools: 2018-AAST and CTSI both correlate better with operative need than the 1994 scale, but CTSI outperforms 2018-AAST for mortality prediction.^[8]

Imaging diagnosis — contrast CT, the 3-finding score, and blush-to-pseudoaneurysm arithmetic

Intravenous contrast-enhanced CT is the diagnostic modality of choice, and repeat imaging follows the patient — not the calendar.^[2] Memorise the 3-finding intervention score: devascularization or laceration of 50% or more of parenchyma, blush greater than 1 cm (active extravasation or pseudoaneurysm), and large hemoperitoneum — sensitivity 100%, specificity 88%, accuracy 93%.^[9] Blush on day zero predicts pseudoaneurysm: 7.2% formed PSA, with contrast extravasation multiplying odds 4.96-fold (95% CI 1.37-18.0) and lifting AUC from 0.75 to 0.80.^[10] Fence the label: expert concordance on vascular-injury type is only 56.3%, and an actively bleeding lesion carries a 40.9% splenectomy risk whatever the first read called it — so treat the physiology and the blush, not the noun.^[11]

NOM selection and monitoring — haemodynamics over grade, in adults and children

The Delphi rule is absolute: hemodynamic instability indicates operation irrespective of CT characteristics and grade (≥82% experts), with associated intra-abdominal injuries or 5-plus units of transfusion also indicating operation; stable intraparenchymal extravasation starts SAE within 60 minutes and every NOM patient spends 1-3 days in a monitored setting.^[12] Children prove grade does not decide: 73% managed non-operatively at 100% index efficacy including most grade V lesions, while haemodynamic instability — not grade — predicted operation (p = 0.03), critical care, additional injuries and stay.^[13] Age is not the fence examiners once taught: dedicated surgeons selected 69% for NOM with 94% success, and age 55 or older is explicitly not a contraindication.^[14] The rural proof agrees — 37 of 38 children (97%) managed non-operatively at a rural adult level-II centre with 100% salvage, zero 30-day mortality and no late complications at median 5.5 years — while NSW shows the system cost of getting this wrong: only 10.6% of 955 children operated, but 3.7-5.2-fold higher odds outside a paediatric trauma centre.^[15][16]

NOM failure arithmetic — the 12%, the grade ladder, the 5-hour clock

Quote the meta-analysis first: 3,025 failures among 24,615 unselected patients (12%, range 4-52%), with failure raising mortality (OR 1.93) and embolization protocols cutting failure (OR 0.26); grades 4-5, moderate or large hemoperitoneum, higher ISS and increasing age drive failure.^[17] The grade ladder beside it: NOM success 100%, 96.3%, 92.8%, 57.7% and 0.0% for grades I-V, with 88.0% overall success, 10.1% complications and 1.2% mortality — while the UK cohort multiplies grades III-V failure 15.6-fold, with rebleed in 16.1% after NOM at median 2.3 days and 28.6% after embolization at 2.0 days.^[18][19] Start the clock correctly: overall splenectomy salvage ran 81% across 15,732 injuries but 95% NOM success after the 5th hour — the benchmark hour — with higher grade, level-2/community hospitals and age 55-plus predicting failure; each year of age multiplies failure odds 1.014 with most failures inside 48 hours.^[20][21]

High-grade and comorbidity exceptions — equivalence, drivers, cirrhosis, hollow viscus

High-grade stable disease earns attempted preservation: NOM was tried in 52.2% of 2,746 grade IV/V injuries with mortality equal to immediate splenectomy (11.5% vs 10.0%, ns) but fewer infections (21.4% vs 16.9%); failure ran 20.1% — driven by bleeding disorders, early transfusion and grade V lesions — and failed NOM did not raise mortality over immediate operation (6.4% vs 16.4%) at the price of longer stay.^[22] The surgical driver inside that number is instability: 53.6% of 28 high-grades needed splenectomy and every one stayed unstable after resuscitation including all grade V lesions, while preserving the rest succeeded in 76.9% with no high-grade mortality.^[23] Two comorbidity fences complete the picture: cirrhotics fail NOM more (83% vs 90%) and die more (22% vs 6%) despite more embolization (13% vs 8%), with grade 4-5 multiplying failure 11.6-fold — select cautiously.^[24] And remember the missed-injury trap: hollow-viscus injury complicates 3.1% of spleen injuries (6.7% with combined liver-spleen injury) against 1.5% without solid-organ injury, rising with spleen grade — peritonitis after NOM is a viscus injury until proven otherwise.^[25]

Embolization indications — blush, grade, and the prophylaxis proof with its NNT fence

The WSES 2022 rules are grade-blind where blush exists: SAE first-line for stable arterial blush irrespective of grade, low threshold for grade III without blush carrying failure risk factors, and angiography with eventual SAE for all stable grade IV-V disease even without blush — especially before position-changing surgery — with 48-72-hour CEUS/CT follow-up for grade III-plus NOM.^[26] Grade III without blush still splits experts on injury severity, bleeding diathesis and associated abdominal injury — name the three before committing.^[27] The era shift behind the rules: SAEs rose from 8.3% to 60.5% as surgery fell from 43.8% to 10.5% (2001-2015), with 92.6% hemostasis for vascular lesions and spleen-related mortality of 0%, 0.4% and 7.2% for observation, SAE and surgery.^[28] Prophylaxis has a randomised-adjacent proof: high-grade prophylactic embolization cut failure 57% (OR 0.43) and mortality 37% (OR 0.63), and PSA embolization cut failure to 3.1% versus 13.3% without it.^[29][30] Fence the enthusiasm with the NNT: low-to-medium NOM succeeds in 94% and primary SAE in 96%, so extending SAE to all grade-3 disease costs 13 treated per failure prevented — reserve it for high-grade injury, visible vascular pathology and active bleeding.^[31]

Embolization harms and technique — the ledger, proximal versus distal, and the function debate

Consent with the systematic-review ledger: SAE fails in 5.3% of 3,835 embolized patients, with major rebleed 4.8%, infarction 4.6% and abscess 4.0%, minor fever 18.4%, effusion 13.1% and coil migration 3.9%, and post-embolization mortality 0.08%.^[32] Technique trades minor harm, not salvage: overall angioembolization failure is 10.2%, minor complications favour proximal over distal disease, and infarct or infection rates requiring splenectomy are equivalent — while Italian real-world practice holds 100% technical success with 9.6% splenectomy and 24.9% complications including 5.7% infarct and 3.2% rebleed.^[33][34] The transfusion tripwire decides vigilance: 24-hour transfusion independently predicts embolization failure, only 8% need delayed splenectomy overall, but failure raises mortality to 15% versus 3% with delayed splenectomy carrying OR 4.2 for death.^[35] State the function paradox honestly: no OPSI followed SAE across the review with 11 of 12 studies showing preserved function — yet no single test proves it — while preservation showed no immunologic advantage over splenectomy for IgM and 14 pneumococcal serotypes, so vaccinate and follow both groups; meanwhile SAE use doubled (4.6% to 10%) with flat splenectomy (19.2% to 18.3%), warning against reflexive embolization.^[38][39][37]

Operative and damage-control surgery — packing, hemostatic splenectomy, lost arts

Unstable patients leave radiology behind: immediate damage-control surgery with splenic packing plus negative-pressure dressing, then angiography with embolization for ongoing arterial bleeding — splenectomy only if surgical bleeding persists as the definitive lifesaving maneuver.^[40] Know what the modern trainee has lost: emergent splenectomy 21.9%, angioembolization 22.0%, observation 51.7% and splenorrhaphy 1.4% today versus 43.4% splenorrhaphy historically — suture repair and partial splenectomy are lost arts, now cautery plus topical agents in low-grade disease.^[41]

Follow-up, mobilization, readmission, and delayed bleeding — the WSES bundle with honest limits

Mobilize early but conditionally: low-grade disease after 24 hours, high-grade disease once three 8-hourly hemoglobins sit within 10% — admitting low-grade disease 1 day and high-grade disease 3 days in a monitored setting.^[26] Image selectively: routine follow-up imaging holds limited therapeutic advantage with 3.9% NOM failure, every failure heralded by clinical deterioration within 48 hours — and no routine post-discharge imaging is the Delphi position.^[42][12] Counsel the post-discharge numbers: 30-day readmission 8.4% overall and 2.0% spleen-related (2.4% after salvage, 69.4% within 7 days), with readmitted salvage carrying 22.3% splenectomy and 1.6% mortality.^[43] The long tail is thin but real: 180-day rebleed without surgery or embolization is 1.302%, driven by age under 54, male sex, non-traffic mechanism, ISS 16-plus and heart failure — and minor injury with blush can still rupture fatally, so embolize probable pseudoaneurysm urgently rather than watching it.^[44][45]

VTE prophylaxis — early is safe, late kills, embolization raises the stakes

The AAST trial settles timing: prophylaxis within 48 hours versus later gave VTE 3% versus 7% with equal NOM failure (3% vs 4%) and fewer post-prophylaxis transfusions — late start independently raised VTE (OR 2.251), making ≤48-hour initiation the safe and effective standard.^[46] WSES frames the compatible window at 48-72 hours with LMWH absent specific complications — start at the early end of it, since starting after 48 hours raised VTE (OR 1.75) in the embolization cohort.^[26][36] Embolization itself is prothrombotic: angioembolization independently raised DVT (4.5% vs 1.4%; OR 2.65) and any VTE (OR 2.04) — order early LMWH after the coils, not late.^[36]

Children — vast-majority NOM with centre and angiography caveats

Children belong in paediatric centres with vast-majority NOM as the WSES default — and the rural data show adult centres can match it when they follow the same physiology-first rules.^[1][15] NSW quantifies the system gap beside the bedside rule above: massive disruption, hollow viscus and transfusion drive operation, but care outside a paediatric trauma centre multiplies operative odds 3.7-5.2-fold.^[16] The angiography signal is association, not mandate: propensity-matched pediatric mortality ran 4.9% versus 11.2% with angiography (OR 0.416) — select, do not screen, every injured child.^[47]

OPSI biology — organism, tempo, lethality, lifelong risk

Pneumococcus dominates the prospective ICU data: detected in 42% versus 12% of OPSI versus non-asplenic sepsis with bloodstream infection in 31% versus 6%, purpura fulminans complicating 19% versus 5%, at a median interval of 6 years after splenectomy (range 1 month to 50 years) — with asplenia the sole independent predictor of pneumococcal sepsis (adjusted relative risk 2.53) and vaccine coverage only 42% among the victims.^[48] The lethality fence is absolute: case-fatality 40% to 54%, mortality up to 50% with pneumococcus behind over half of cases, against a background incidence of 0.1% to 8.5% depending on era and vaccine penetration.^[49][50][51] And the risk never ends: roughly 1 million Americans live with asplenia or hyposplenia, worst in young children, early post-splenectomy and immunocompromise, with fulminant encapsulated disease plus Capnocytophaga, Babesia and malaria risk — infections surface as late as 40 years on.^[52]

Prevention — vaccines, registry, penicillin, and the surgeon's responsibility

The backbone is combined and boosted: PCV13 followed by PPSV23, meningococcal conjugates for A/C/Y/W-135 plus serogroup B vaccines, Hib and annual influenza, with ongoing boosters — prophylaxis targeting the first 1-3 years, age 5 and under, and immunocompromise, while sepsis risk itself is lifelong.^[52] Asplenic adults get pneumococcal, meningococcal and Hib vaccines plus boosters despite known failures — immunization explains part of the observed sepsis fall.^[53] Systems beat exhortation: Spleen Australia registration cut invasive disease from 150 to 36 per 100,000 patient-years (IRR 0.31, 69% reduction).^[54] The gap beside it is the viva's audit question: baseline uptake ran 81.0% pneumococcal but only 51.9% Hib and 22.8% meningococcal, while Norway reached 29.0% PCV, 42.0% PPSV and 18.7% both with 4.2% double MenACWY — leaving 28% of invasive infections preventable by guideline-concordant vaccination.^[55][56] Operative prevention rules: vaccinate even perioperatively — guidelines say avoid 14 days either side of surgery, but most data suggest immediate immunization can still work, placing the surgeon primarily responsible for initial cover.^[51] Penicillin failure is very rare — only five penicillin-sensitive breakthroughs in the reviewed series — with indefinite prophylaxis plus pneumococcal vaccine recommended for children and adults alike; general practice keeps daily antibiotics for at least 2 years with emergency standby antibiotics, alert card, vaccination record, and travel and animal counselling — while standby dosing carries no abstract-backed numbers in this gather and is stated without doses.^[57][50]

Elective splenectomy and laparoscopy — vanishing indications with durable arithmetic

Splenectomy for ITP and autoimmune hemolytic anemia still works when medicine fails: complete response in 91% and 93% respectively with relapse in 17% and 29% — 64% responded after relapse for an 85% durable complete response (82% ITP, 93% AHA) — with 10% 30-day and 5% long-term complications and no 30-day mortality.^[58] Yet the indication is vanishing: ITP splenectomy referrals have declined to zero despite rising ITP diagnoses, as second-line medicines absorb the caseload — maintain the skill while referring less.^[59] Modern laparoscopy cures durably: 90.8% initial response with 68% maintained at median 62 months and 7.3% perioperative morbidity including deep-vein, portal-vein and rebleed events without mortality.^[60] Children match it: 83% partial and 74% complete response with 70% maintained and 91% off long-term drugs including steroids.^[61] Technique numbers favour ITP disease: 5% conversion with 14% accessory spleens found, and remission in 85% of ITP, 89% of TTP and 89% of AIHA at mean 20 months.^[62] Two population fences close the topic: Jamaican sickle-cell disease shows no excess death or bacteremia versus matched controls — do not defer indicated splenectomy for that fear.^[63] Under-4 sickle splenectomy carries 5.7% bacteremia admissions with 1.8% pneumococcal death on vaccine plus penicillin — safe and effective where transfusion burden demands it, with prophylaxis non-negotiable.^[64] And where vaccine is unavailable, partial beats total: 5 deaths among 30 Iraqi patients over 4 years against 1 death among 22 vaccinated Saudi total-splenectomy patients over 12 years, with zero deaths among 12 partial-splenectomy patients — consider parenchyma-sparing where Pneumovax cannot be had.^[65]

Revision summary

Physiology-anatomy-lesions doctrine with EAST stability selection^[1][2]; 2018-AAST salvage/splenectomy trade with CTSI mortality edge^[7][8]; contrast-CT diagnosis with the 50%/1-cm/hemoperitoneum score and blush-to-PSA odds^[9][10]; haemodynamics-over-grade NOM with Delphi monitoring^[12][13]; 12% failure meta-analysis with the grade ladder and 5-hour clock^[17][18][20]; high-grade equivalence with cirrhosis and viscus fences^[22][24][25]; blush-driven SAE rules with 57% failure cut and NNT 13^[26][29][31]; 5.3% SAE failure ledger with proximal/distal equivalence and function paradox^[32][33][39]; packing-to-hemostatic-splenectomy damage control with lost splenorrhaphy^[40][41]; 24-hour/3-day mobilization-admission bundle with 2% readmission and 1.3% late rebleed^[26][43][44]; ≤48-hour VTE prophylaxis against the embolization prothrombotic effect^[46][36]; paediatric centre effects with selective angiography^[16][47]; pneumococcal OPSI at 6-year median with 40-54% fatality and 40-year risk^[48][49][52]; PCV13-PPSV23/Men/Hib backbone with 69% registry cut and 28% preventable gap^[52][54][56]; vanishing ITP indications with 68-85% durable laparoscopic cure and sickle/partial fences^{[59][60][63][65]}.

SAEs rose 8.3% to 60.5% as surgery fell 43.8% to 10.5% (2001-2015); vascular-injury hemostasis 92.6% with 95.5% salvage after second embolization; spleen-related mortality 0/0.4/7.2% for observation/SAE/surgery (PMID 35962229).^[28] NOM failure 3.9% with every failure heralded by clinical deterioration within 48 h — routine imaging added nothing new in 96.4%-adjacent practice, so image on deterioration (PMID 32111461); no routine post-discharge imaging (88% experts) (PMID 23694889).^[42]

References65ShowHide

1. [1]Coccolini F, Montori G, et al. Splenic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines for adult and pediatric patients. World J Emerg Surg, 2017.PMID 28828034
2. [2]Stassen NA, Bhullar I, et al. Selective nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2012.PMID 23114484
3. [3]Girard E, Abba J, et al. Management of splenic and pancreatic trauma. J Visc Surg, 2016.PMID 27402320
4. [4]Tinkoff G, Esposito TJ, et al. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale I: spleen, liver, and kidney, validation based on the National Trauma Data Bank. J Am Coll Surg, 2008.PMID 18954775
5. [5]Abdel-Aziz H, Murray C, et al. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale for Spleen Does Not Equally Predict Interventions in Penetrating and Blunt Trauma. Am Surg, 2023.PMID 37159228
6. [6]McGuinness MJ, Joseph N, et al. Management and outcomes of splenic injuries secondary to blunt trauma in patients presenting to major trauma hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand. ANZ J Surg, 2024.PMID 38888264
7. [7]Dhillon NK, Harfouche MN, et al. Out with the old, in with the new? The revised AAST grading schema better predicts splenic salvage but not splenectomy. Am J Surg, 2024.PMID 38906747
8. [8]Morell-Hofert D, Primavesi F, et al. Validation of the revised 2018 AAST-OIS classification and the CT severity index for prediction of operative management and survival in patients with blunt spleen and liver injuries. Eur Radiol, 2020.PMID 32696255
9. [9]Thompson BE, Munera F, et al. Novel computed tomography scan scoring system predicts the need for intervention after splenic injury. J Trauma, 2006.PMID 16688074
10. [10]Katsura M, Fukuma S, et al. Association between contrast extravasation on computed tomography scans and pseudoaneurysm formation in pediatric blunt splenic and hepatic injury: A multi-institutional observational study. J Pediatr Surg, 2020.PMID 31350043
11. [11]Zarzaur BL, Dunn JA, et al. Natural history of splenic vascular abnormalities after blunt injury: A Western Trauma Association multicenter trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2017.PMID 28570347
12. [12]Olthof DC, van der Vlies CH, et al. Consensus strategies for the nonoperative management of patients with blunt splenic injury: a Delphi study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2013.PMID 23694889
13. [13]Ardley R, Carone L, et al. Blunt splenic injury in children: haemodynamic status key to guiding management, a 5-year review of practice in a UK major trauma centre. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2019.PMID 30251151
14. [14]Myers JG, Dent DL, et al. Blunt splenic injuries: dedicated trauma surgeons can achieve a high rate of nonoperative success in patients of all ages. J Trauma, 2000.PMID 10823522
15. [15]Bird JJ, Patel NY, et al. Management of pediatric blunt splenic injury at a rural trauma center. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2012.PMID 22836000
16. [16]Adams SE, Holland A, et al. Management of paediatric splenic injury in the New South Wales trauma system. Injury, 2017.PMID 27866649
17. [17]Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, et al. Meta-analysis of predictive factors and outcomes for failure of non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma. Injury, 2012.PMID 21999935
18. [18]Yıldız A, Özpek A, et al. Blunt splenic trauma: Analysis of predictors and risk factors affecting the non-operative management failure rate. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2022.PMID 36169475
19. [19]Smith SR, Morris L, et al. Management of blunt splenic injury in a UK major trauma centre and predicting the failure of non-operative management: a retrospective, cross-sectional study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2018.PMID 28600670
20. [20]Jeremitsky E, Smith RS, et al. Starting the clock: defining nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury by time. Am J Surg, 2013.PMID 23351507
21. [21]Ong AW, Eilertson KE, et al. Nonoperative management of splenic injuries: significance of age. J Surg Res, 2016.PMID 26850194
22. [22]Scarborough JE, Ingraham AM, et al. Nonoperative Management Is as Effective as Immediate Splenectomy for Adult Patients with High-Grade Blunt Splenic Injury. J Am Coll Surg, 2016.PMID 27112125
23. [23]Nijdam TMP, Spijkerman R, et al. Predictors of surgical management of high grade blunt splenic injuries in adult trauma patients: a 5-year retrospective cohort study from an academic level I trauma center. Patient Saf Surg, 2020.PMID 32774457
24. [24]Bugaev N, Breeze JL, et al. Management and outcome of patients with blunt splenic injury and preexisting liver cirrhosis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2014.PMID 24854300
25. [25]Swaid F, Peleg K, et al. Concomitant hollow viscus injuries in patients with blunt hepatic and splenic injuries: an analysis of a National Trauma Registry database. Injury, 2014.PMID 24656303
26. [26]Podda M, De Simone B, et al. Follow-up strategies for patients with splenic trauma managed non-operatively: the 2022 World Society of Emergency Surgery consensus document. World J Emerg Surg, 2022.PMID 36224617
27. [27]Amico F, Anning R, et al. Grade III blunt splenic injury without contrast extravasation - World Society of Emergency Surgery Nijmegen consensus practice. World J Emerg Surg, 2020.PMID 32746885
28. [28]Lin BC, Wu CH, et al. Splenic artery embolization changes the management of blunt splenic injury: an observational analysis of 680 patients graded by the revised 2018 AAST-OIS. Surg Endosc, 2023.PMID 35962229
29. [29]Nann S, Clark M, et al. Prophylactic embolization vs observation for high-grade blunt trauma splenic injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis. JBI Evid Synth, 2025.PMID 39028141
30. [30]Dhillon NK, Harfouche MN, et al. Embolization of Pseudoaneurysms is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Blunt Splenic Trauma. J Surg Res, 2024.PMID 37839096
31. [31]Ruhnke H, Jehs B, et al. Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma: The role of splenic artery embolization depending on the severity of parenchymal injury. Eur J Radiol, 2021.PMID 33561627
32. [32]Alomar Z, Alomar Y, et al. Complications and failure rate of splenic artery angioembolization following blunt splenic trauma: A systematic review. Injury, 2024.PMID 39111269
33. [33]Schnüriger B, Inaba K, et al. Outcomes of proximal versus distal splenic artery embolization after trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma, 2011.PMID 21217497
34. [34]Corvino F, Giurazza F, et al. Real-World Outcomes of Splenic Artery Embolization in Blunt Splenic Trauma: Insights from an Italian Multicenter Cohort. J Pers Med, 2025.PMID 41003123
35. [35]Bankhead-Kendall B, Teixeira P, et al. Risk Factors for Failure of Splenic Angioembolization: A Multicenter Study of Level I Trauma Centers. J Surg Res, 2021.PMID 32861100
36. [36]Lewis M, Piccinini A, et al. Splenic Artery Angioembolization is Associated with Increased Venous Thromboembolism. World J Surg, 2021.PMID 33073315
37. [37]Schneider AB, Gallaher J, et al. Splenic preservation after isolated splenic blunt trauma: The angioembolization paradox. Surgery, 2021.PMID 33618855
38. [38]Schimmer JA, van der Steeg AF, et al. Splenic function after angioembolization for splenic trauma in children and adults: A systematic review. Injury, 2016.PMID 26772452
39. [39]Nakae H, Shimazu T, et al. Does splenic preservation treatment (embolization, splenorrhaphy, and partial splenectomy) improve immunologic function and long-term prognosis after splenic injury? J Trauma, 2009.PMID 19741400
40. [40]Serna C, Serna JJ, et al. Damage control surgery for splenic trauma: 'preserve an organ - preserve a life'. Colomb Med (Cali), 2021.PMID 34188324
41. [41]Ko A, Radding S, et al. Near Disappearance of Splenorrhaphy as an Operative Strategy for Splenic Preservation After Trauma. Am Surg, 2022.PMID 34732074
42. [42]Liechti R, Fourie L, et al. Routine follow-up imaging has limited advantage in the non-operative management of blunt splenic injury in adult patients. Injury, 2020.PMID 32111461
43. [43]Santorelli JE, Costantini TW, et al. Readmission after splenic salvage: How real is the risk? Surgery, 2022.PMID 34857387
44. [44]Chen CY, Lin HY, et al. Risk factors of 180-day rebleeding after management of blunt splenic injury without surgery and embolization: a national database study. World J Emerg Surg, 2025.PMID 39910603
45. [45]Sawamoto T, Otsuka H, et al. Two Cases of Minor Blunt Splenic Injury Accompanied with Unexpected Fatal Delayed Splenic Rupture. Tokai J Exp Clin Med, 2022.PMID 35801546
46. [46]Schellenberg M, Owattanapanich N, et al. When is it safe to start venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after blunt solid organ injury? A prospective American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2024.PMID 37872669
47. [47]Ishida K, Katayama Y, et al. Abdominal angiography is associated with reduced in-hospital mortality among pediatric patients with blunt splenic and hepatic injury: A propensity-score-matching study from the national trauma registry in Japan. J Pediatr Surg, 2021.PMID 32838974
48. [48]Theilacker C, Ludewig K, et al. Overwhelming Postsplenectomy Infection: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis, 2016.PMID 26703862
49. [49]Taniguchi LU, Correia MD, et al. Overwhelming post-splenectomy infection: narrative review of the literature. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2014.PMID 25318011
50. [50]Jones P, Leder K, et al. Postsplenectomy infection - strategies for prevention in general practice. Aust Fam Physician, 2010.PMID 20628676
51. [51]Casciani F, Trudeau MT, et al. Perioperative Immunization for Splenectomy and the Surgeon's Responsibility: A Review. JAMA Surg, 2020.PMID 32936229
52. [52]Lee GM Preventing infections in children and adults with asplenia. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program, 2020.PMID 33275684
53. [53]Mourtzoukou EG, Pappas G, et al. Vaccination of asplenic or hyposplenic adults. Br J Surg, 2008.PMID 18278784
54. [54]Arnott A, Jones P, et al. A Registry for Patients With Asplenia/Hyposplenism Reduces the Risk of Infections With Encapsulated Organisms. Clin Infect Dis, 2018.PMID 29471470
55. [55]Nived P, Jørgensen CS, et al. Vaccination status and immune response to 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in asplenic individuals. Vaccine, 2015.PMID 25707692
56. [56]Orangzeb S, Watle SV, et al. Adherence to vaccination guidelines of patients with complete splenectomy in Norway, 2008-2020. Vaccine, 2023.PMID 37336662
57. [57]Zarrabi MH, Rosner F, et al. Rarity of failure of penicillin prophylaxis to prevent postsplenectomy sepsis. Arch Intern Med, 1986.PMID 3521520
58. [58]Patel NY, Chilsen AM, et al. Outcomes and complications after splenectomy for hematologic disorders. Am J Surg, 2012.PMID 23116640
59. [59]Fernández-Ananin S, Novelli S, et al. Elective splenectomy for hematological diseases: a vanishing indication. Surg Endosc, 2024.PMID 39210059
60. [60]Tastaldi L, Krpata DM, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP): long-term outcomes of a modern cohort. Surg Endosc, 2019.PMID 29987573
61. [61]Isshiki K, Mori M, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety profile of splenectomy for pediatric chronic immune thrombocytopenia. Int J Hematol, 2023.PMID 36622550
62. [62]Rosen M, Brody F, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic splenectomy based on hematologic indication. Surg Endosc, 2002.PMID 11967677
63. [63]Wright JG, Hambleton IR, et al. Postsplenectomy course in homozygous sickle cell disease. J Pediatr, 1999.PMID 10064666
64. [64]Lesher AP, Kalpatthi R, et al. Outcome of splenectomy in children younger than 4 years with sickle cell disease. J Pediatr Surg, 2009.PMID 19524729
65. [65]Sheikha AK, Salih ZT, et al. Prevention of overwhelming postsplenectomy infection in thalassemia patients by partial rather than total splenectomy. Can J Surg, 2007.PMID 18031639