Management of Splenic Trauma in Contemporary Clinical Practice: A National Trauma Data Bank Study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the utilization and efficacy of various treatments for management of adult patients with splenic trauma, highlighting the evolving role of splenic artery embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was queried for patients who sustained splenic trauma between 2007 and 2015, excluding those with death on arrival and selected nonsplenic high-grade injuries. Patients were categorized into (1) nonoperative management (NOM), (2) embolization, (3) splenectomy, (4) splenic repair, and (5) combined treatment groups. Evaluated outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, mortality, and NOM and embolization failures. RESULTS: Overall, 117,743 patients with splenic predominant trauma were included in this study. Over the 9-year study period, 85,793 (72.9%) were treated with NOM, 21,999 (18.9%) with splenectomy, 3895 (3.3%) with embolization, and 2131 (1.8%) with splenic repair. From 2007 to 2015, mortality rates declined from 7.6% to 4.7%. The rate of NOM did not significantly change over time, while embolization increased 369% (1.3%-4.8%). Failure of NOM was 4.4% in 2007 and decreased to 3.4% in 2015. Across all injury grades, NOM had the shortest LOS (8.3 days), followed by splenic repair (12.3), embolization (12.6), and splenectomy (13.8) (p < 0.001). When adjusted for various clinical factors including severity of splenic injury, mortality rates were 7.1% for splenectomy, 3.2% for embolization, and 2.5% for NOM. CONCLUSION: Most patients with splenic-dominant blunt trauma are managed with NOM. Over time, the use of embolization has increased while open surgery has declined, and mortality has improved for all treatment methods. Compared to splenectomy, embolization is associated with shorter hospital LOS but is still used relatively infrequently.

The state of emergency radiology fellowships in North America and the development of a standardized curriculum.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The number of emergency radiology (ER) training programs in North America is small compared to the projected growth in demand for ER-trained radiologists. To date, there is no consensus-based training curriculum that sets a standard for all ER fellowship training programs. This study seeks to (1) identify the programmatic measures currently used in North American ER fellowship programs and (2) gather the perspectives of existing ER fellowship program directors (PD) and their recommendations for minimum and ideal curricular standards. METHODS: We distributed an 18-question survey to the PDs of every North American ER fellowship program (N = 15). Surveys were completed during the 2016-2017 academic year. We performed a cross-sectional analysis to gain an understanding of existing training curricula, expected areas of competency by the end-of-training, and PD opinions of what a standard ER training curriculum should contain. RESULTS: The data revealed heterogeneity in programmatic structure across the continent, as well as some areas of agreement. PD suggestions for a standard ER training curriculum showed consistency in many areas, including competency and proficiency expectations and clinical exposures, with some variability. These data were used to inform the creation of the first curricular standard for ER fellowship training. CONCLUSION: This study yielded the creation of a standard fellowship training resource for the field of ER. This deliverable serves as a curricular guideline for existing ER fellowships, as well as a model for new ER fellowship programs.