Suppr超能文献

钝性实性器官创伤中的相关损伤:对非手术治疗中漏诊损伤的影响。

Associated injuries in blunt solid organ trauma: implications for missed injury in nonoperative management.

作者信息

Miller Preston R, Croce Martin A, Bee Tiffany K, Malhotra Ajai K, Fabian Timothy C

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis 38163, USA.

出版信息

J Trauma. 2002 Aug;53(2):238-42; discussion 242-4. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200208000-00008.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, nonoperative management (NOM) of hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients with liver (L) or spleen (S) injury has become the standard of care. This trend has led to concerns over missed associated intra-abdominal injuries with concomitant morbidity. To better understand the incidence and risk of missed injury, patterns of associated intra-abdominal injury were examined in all patients with blunt liver and spleen injuries, and missed injuries were reviewed in patients undergoing NOM.

METHODS

Patients were identified from the registry of a Level I trauma center over a 3-year period. Records were reviewed for demographics, injury characteristics, and associated injuries. Indications for primary operation were hemodynamic instability or significant associated intra-abdominal injury. Missed injury was defined as unsuspected intra-abdominal injury requiring laparotomy in patients otherwise undergoing NOM for liver or spleen injury.

RESULTS

Eight hundred three patients (338 in the L group, 345 in the S group, and 120 in the L + S group) were treated between December 1995 and December 1998. Rates of planned NOM were 89% (L group), 78% (S group), and 75% (L + S group). On examination of all patients with blunt liver or spleen injuries, the incidence of associated intra-abdominal injury was higher in the L group at 5% as compared with 1.7% in the S group (p = 0.02). The associated intra-abdominal injury rate in the L + S group was similar to the L group at 4.2%. Although in the L and S groups, rates of diaphragm (0.5% vs. 1%, p = 0.45) and intra-abdominal bladder injury (0.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.99) were similar, bowel injury was more common in the L group (11% vs. 0%, p = 0.0004), as was pancreatic injury (7% vs. 0%, p = 0.007). In NOM patients, missed injury occurred in seven (2.3%) L patients versus zero S patients (p = 0.012). No L + S patient had unexpected injuries. Missed injuries included two small bowel, three diaphragm, one pancreas, and one mesenteric tear.

CONCLUSION

Damage to the pancreas and bowel is significantly associated with liver as opposed to spleen injuries. Actual missed intra-abdominal injury with NOM mirrors this pattern, occurring more often with liver than with spleen injuries. However, the overall incidence of missed injury is quite low, and should not influence decisions concerning eligibility for NOM. We speculate that the greater amount and/or different vector of energy transfer needed to injure the liver versus the spleen accounts for the greater rate of associated injuries to the pancreas/small bowel.

摘要

背景

在过去十年中,对血流动力学稳定的钝性肝(L)或脾(S)损伤患者进行非手术治疗(NOM)已成为治疗的标准。这种趋势引发了对漏诊相关腹腔内损伤及随之而来的发病率的担忧。为了更好地了解漏诊损伤的发生率和风险,我们对所有钝性肝脾损伤患者的相关腹腔内损伤模式进行了检查,并对接受非手术治疗的患者的漏诊损伤情况进行了回顾。

方法

从一家一级创伤中心的登记处识别出3年内的患者。对记录进行了人口统计学、损伤特征和相关损伤的审查。初次手术的指征是血流动力学不稳定或严重的相关腹腔内损伤。漏诊损伤定义为在因肝或脾损伤接受非手术治疗的患者中未被怀疑的需要剖腹手术的腹腔内损伤。

结果

1995年12月至1998年12月期间共治疗了803例患者(L组338例,S组345例,L+S组120例)。计划进行非手术治疗的比例分别为89%(L组)、78%(S组)和75%(L+S组)。在对所有钝性肝或脾损伤患者的检查中,L组相关腹腔内损伤的发生率较高,为5%,而S组为1.7%(p=0.02)。L+S组相关腹腔内损伤的发生率与L组相似,为4.2%。虽然在L组和S组中,膈肌损伤(0.5%对1%,p=0.45)和腹腔内膀胱损伤(0.3%对0.3%,p=0.99)的发生率相似,但肠损伤在L组中更常见(11%对0%,p=0.0004),胰腺损伤也是如此(7%对0%,p=0.007)。在接受非手术治疗的患者中,7例(2.3%)L组患者发生了漏诊损伤,而S组患者为零(p=0.012)。没有L+S组患者发生意外损伤。漏诊损伤包括2例小肠、3例膈肌、1例胰腺和1例肠系膜撕裂。

结论

与脾损伤相比,胰腺和肠损伤与肝损伤显著相关。非手术治疗中实际漏诊的腹腔内损伤也反映了这种模式,肝损伤比脾损伤更常发生漏诊。然而,漏诊损伤的总体发生率相当低,不应影响关于非手术治疗适用性的决策。我们推测,与脾脏相比,损伤肝脏所需的能量传递量更大和/或方向不同,这导致了胰腺/小肠相关损伤的发生率更高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验