Sekharan J, Dennis J W, Veldenz H C, Miranda F, Frykberg E R
Department of Surgery, University of Florida Health Science Center, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2000 Sep;32(3):483-9. doi: 10.1067/mva.2000.109333.
Our preliminary experience with physical examination alone in the evaluation of penetrating zone 2 neck injuries for vascular trauma was previously reported in 28 patients over a 2-year period (1991-1993). The purpose of the current study was to examine the results of this approach in a much larger group of patients over an 8-year period.
The medical records for all patients admitted to our level I trauma center (all of them entered into our prospective protocol) between December 1991 and April 1999 with penetrating zone 2 neck trauma were reviewed for their initial presentation and any documented vascular injury.
A total of 145 patients made up the study group; in 30 of these patients, the penetrating trajectory also traversed zone 1 or 3. Thirty-one patients (21%) had hard signs of vascular injury (active bleeding, expanding hematoma, bruit/thrill, pulse deficit, central neurologic deficit) and were taken immediately to the operating room; 28 (90%) of these 30 patients had either major arterial or venous injuries requiring operative repair (the false-positive rate for physical examination thus being 10%). Of the 114 patients with no hard signs, 23 underwent arteriography because of proximity of the injury to the vertebral arteries or because the trajectory included another zone. Of these 23 arteriograms, three showed abnormalities, but only one required operative repair. This case had no complications relating to the initial delay. The remaining 91 patients with no hard signs were observed without imaging or surgery for a minimum of 23 hours, and none had any evidence of vascular injury during hospitalization or during the initial 2-week follow-up period (1/114; false-negative rate for physical examination, 0.9%).
This series confirms the earlier report indicating that patients with zone 2 penetrating neck wounds can be safely and accurately evaluated by physical examination alone to confirm or exclude vascular injury. The missed-injury rate is 0.7% (1/145) with this approach, which is comparable to arteriography in accuracy but less costly and noninvasive. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm this management option.
我们此前曾报道过在1991年至1993年的2年时间里,对28例穿透性颈部2区损伤患者仅通过体格检查评估血管创伤的初步经验。本研究的目的是在8年时间里,对更多患者检验这种方法的结果。
回顾了1991年12月至1999年4月期间入住我们一级创伤中心的所有穿透性颈部2区创伤患者的病历(所有患者均纳入我们的前瞻性方案),以了解其初始表现及任何已记录的血管损伤情况。
研究组共有145例患者;其中30例患者的穿透轨迹还穿过了1区或3区。31例患者(21%)有血管损伤的硬体征(活动性出血、血肿扩大、杂音/震颤、脉搏缺失、中枢神经功能缺损),并立即被送往手术室;这30例患者中有28例(90%)有需要手术修复的主要动脉或静脉损伤(因此体格检查的假阳性率为10%)。在114例无硬体征的患者中,23例因损伤靠近椎动脉或因轨迹包括其他区域而接受了动脉造影。在这23例动脉造影中,3例显示异常,但只有1例需要手术修复。该病例没有与初始延迟相关的并发症。其余91例无硬体征的患者在未进行影像学检查或手术的情况下至少观察了23小时,在住院期间或最初2周的随访期内均无血管损伤的任何证据(1/114;体格检查的假阴性率为0.9%)。
本系列研究证实了早期报告,表明仅通过体格检查就能安全、准确地评估颈部2区穿透伤患者,以确认或排除血管损伤。采用这种方法漏诊率为0.7%(1/145),其准确性与动脉造影相当,但成本更低且无创。需要长期随访以确认这种处理方案。