Suppr超能文献

钝性脾损伤:手术治疗与血管造影栓塞治疗对比

Blunt splenic injury: operation versus angiographic embolization.

作者信息

Wahl Wendy L, Ahrns Karla S, Chen Steven, Hemmila Mark R, Rowe Stephen A, Arbabi Saman

机构信息

Trauma Burn Center, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor 48109-0033, USA.

出版信息

Surgery. 2004 Oct;136(4):891-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2004.06.026.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Splenic injuries, like other blunt traumatic injuries, are increasingly treated with non-operative management. Angiographic embolization (AE) has emerged as an alternative modality for treatment of splenic injuries. We hypothesized that splenic embolization would lead to equivalent, if not improved, outcomes in terms of mortality, total costs, complications, and duration of stay.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospective data set was performed for all adult splenic injuries admitted to our level I trauma center from 2000 through 2003. Demographics, number of red cell units, emergency department hemodynamics, costs, and outcomes were examined. The operative group included those who underwent computed tomography (CT) first then went to the operating room (OR) (CT+OR) or those who went directly to the OR.

RESULTS

There were 25 CT+OR and 24 AE patients of 164 blunt splenic injuries. After univariate analysis, higher injury severity score (ISS), lower systolic blood pressure, lower pH, and higher packed red blood cell transfusions were associated with increased mortality and duration of stay. The splenic Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS; mean +/- SD) was the same for AE compared to CT+OR patients (3.8 +/- 0.4 vs 3.5 +/- 0.9). Although the AE group was older (50 +/- 20 vs 36 +/- 13 years, P < .01), Glasgow Comma Score (13 +/- 4 vs 11 +/- 5), age, highest heart rate (109 +/- 24 vs 120 +/- 43), and splenic AIS were not predictive of the need for an operation. Abdominal complications were lower in the AE group compared to the CT+OR (13% vs 29%), but mortality was not different (8% vs 4%). Total costs were similar for both groups after adjustment for ISS, GCS, pH, pretreatment transfusions, and spleen AIS (AE, $49,300 +/- $40,460 vs CT+OR, $54,590 +/- $34,760). The non-operative failure rate in this study was 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

AE of splenic injuries is safe and associated with fewer complications. The spleen AIS, heart rate, age, and GCS did not correlate with the need for an operation. Higher ISS, lower blood pressure, lower pH, and increased number of packed red blood cell transfusions were better indicators of the need for an operation versus embolization.

摘要

背景

与其他钝性创伤一样,脾损伤越来越多地采用非手术治疗。血管造影栓塞术(AE)已成为治疗脾损伤的一种替代方法。我们假设,脾栓塞术在死亡率、总成本、并发症和住院时间方面将带来相当甚至更好的结果。

方法

对2000年至2003年入住我们一级创伤中心的所有成年脾损伤患者的前瞻性数据集进行回顾性分析。检查人口统计学数据、红细胞单位数量、急诊科血流动力学、成本和结果。手术组包括那些先进行计算机断层扫描(CT)然后进入手术室(OR)的患者(CT+OR)或直接进入手术室的患者。

结果

在164例钝性脾损伤患者中,有25例CT+OR患者和24例AE患者。单因素分析后,较高的损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、较低的收缩压、较低的pH值和较高的红细胞压积输血与死亡率和住院时间增加相关。与CT+OR患者相比,AE患者的脾简明损伤量表(AIS;平均值±标准差)相同(3.8±0.4对3.5±-0.9)。虽然AE组年龄较大(50±20岁对36±13岁,P<.01),格拉斯哥昏迷评分(13±4对11±5)、年龄、最高心率(109±24对120±43)和脾AIS不能预测是否需要手术。与CT+OR组相比,AE组的腹部并发症较低(13%对29%),但死亡率无差异(8%对4%)。在对ISS、GCS、pH值、预处理输血和脾AIS进行调整后,两组的总成本相似(AE组为49300美元±40460美元,CT+OR组为54590美元±34760美元)。本研究中的非手术失败率为2%。

结论

脾损伤的AE是安全的,且并发症较少。脾AIS、心率、年龄和GCS与是否需要手术无关。较高的ISS、较低的血压、较低的pH值和红细胞压积输血数量增加是需要手术而非栓塞的更好指标。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验