Schweizer W, Böhlen L, Gilg M, Blumgart L H
Universitätsklinik für Viszerale und Transplantationschirurgie, Inselspital Bern.
Helv Chir Acta. 1992 Mar;58(5):647-53.
The haematological and immunological changes after splenectomy have been the subject of intensive research in recent years. As a consequence there has been a clear trend towards splenic salvage. Due to the availability of improved diagnostic investigations (sonography, CT) nonoperative treatment with close observation has become increasingly important in adults. 75 patients with documented splenic injury were prospectively evaluated over a 45-month period with an emphasis upon splenic preservation. Unstable patients had operative exploration with attempt at splenorrhaphy or partial splenic resection. Stable patients were managed nonoperatively, regardless of the degree of splenic injury as determined by sonography and/or computed tomography. In 38 patients the spleen was preserved by operative preservation in 20 and nonoperative treatment in 18 patients. 37 patients required splenectomy. Four patients were managed initially by nonoperative treatment, but required exploration for secondary rupture at 7, 7, 10 and 13 days. Delayed splenectomy was performed in three patients and one patient was treated by splenorrhaphy 7 days after admission. Bleeding complications occurred in one patient after splenorrhaphy (bleeding from the pancreatic tail) and the bleeding vessel could be transfixed during the same anaesthetic. Four patients required reexploration after splenectomy for hemorrhage (2) and evacuation of infected haematomas. The Injury Severity Score (ISS) of the splenectomy and splenic preservation group was determined. Splenectomised patients showed in the postoperative follow-up a significantly increased infection rate (40%, p less than 0.02) when compared to patients with splenic preservation (10%) or nonoperative treatment (11%), even when they were matched in respect of multiple trauma using the Injury Severity Score (ISS).
近年来,脾切除术后的血液学和免疫学变化一直是深入研究的课题。因此,出现了明显的保留脾脏的趋势。由于改进了诊断检查方法(超声、CT),在成人中,密切观察下的非手术治疗变得越来越重要。在45个月的时间里,对75例有脾脏损伤记录的患者进行了前瞻性评估,重点是脾脏的保留。不稳定的患者进行手术探查,尝试进行脾修补术或部分脾切除术。稳定的患者接受非手术治疗,无论超声和/或计算机断层扫描确定的脾脏损伤程度如何。在38例患者中,20例通过手术保留了脾脏,18例通过非手术治疗保留了脾脏。37例患者需要进行脾切除术。4例患者最初接受非手术治疗,但在第7、7、10和13天因继发性破裂需要进行探查。3例患者进行了延迟脾切除术,1例患者在入院7天后接受了脾修补术。1例患者在脾修补术后出现出血并发症(胰尾出血),在同一麻醉过程中可将出血血管缝扎。4例患者在脾切除术后因出血(2例)和清除感染性血肿需要再次探查。确定了脾切除组和脾脏保留组的损伤严重度评分(ISS)。与脾脏保留患者(10%)或非手术治疗患者(11%)相比,脾切除患者在术后随访中显示感染率显著增加(40%,p<0.02),即使在使用损伤严重度评分(ISS)对多发伤进行匹配的情况下也是如此。