Bala Miklosh, Edden Yair, Mintz Yoav, Kisselgoff David, Gercenstein Irina, Rivkind Avraham I, Farugy Muhammad, Almogy Gidon
Department of General Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, lerusalem, Israel.
Isr Med Assoc J. 2007 Dec;9(12):857-61.
Non-operative management of blunt splenic trauma is the preferred option in hemodynamically stable patients.
To identify predictors for the successful non-operative management of patients with blunt splenic trauma.
The study group comprised consecutive patients admitted with the diagnosis of blunt splenic trauma to the Department of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem over a 3 year period. Prospectively recorded were hemodynamic status, computed tomography grade of splenic tear, presence and extent of extra-abdominal injury, number of red blood cell units transfused, and outcome. Hemodynamic instability and the severity of associated injuries were used to determine the need for splenectomy. Hemodynamically stable patients without an indication for laparotomy were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and monitored.
There were 64 adults (45 males, mean age 30.2 years) who met the inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis the 13 patients (20.3%) who underwent immediate splenectomy were more likely to have lower admission systolic blood pressure (P= 0.001), Glasgow Coma Scale < 8 (P= 0.02), and injury to at least three extra-abdominal regions (P= 0.06). Nine of the 52 patients (17.3%) who were successfully treated non-operatively suffered from grade > or = 4 splenic tear. Multivariate analysis identified admission systolic BP (odds ratio 1.04) and associated injury to less than three extra-abdominal regions (OD 8.03) as predictors for the success of non-operative management, while the need for blood transfusion was a strong predictor (OR 66.67) for splenectomy.
Admission systolic blood pressure and limited extra-abdominal injury can be used to identify patients with blunt splenic trauma who do not require splenectomy and can be safely monitored outside an ICU environment.
对于血流动力学稳定的钝性脾外伤患者,非手术治疗是首选方案。
确定钝性脾外伤患者非手术治疗成功的预测因素。
研究组包括在耶路撒冷哈达萨-希伯来大学医学中心外科连续3年收治的钝性脾外伤患者。前瞻性记录血流动力学状态、脾撕裂的计算机断层扫描分级、腹部外损伤的存在及范围、输注红细胞单位数量和治疗结果。血流动力学不稳定和相关损伤的严重程度用于确定是否需要行脾切除术。血流动力学稳定且无剖腹手术指征的患者收入重症监护病房并进行监测。
有64名成年人(45名男性,平均年龄30.2岁)符合纳入标准。单因素分析显示,13例(20.3%)立即行脾切除术的患者更可能入院时收缩压较低(P = 0.001)、格拉斯哥昏迷评分<8分(P = 0.02)以及至少有三个腹部外区域受伤(P = 0.06)。52例非手术治疗成功的患者中有9例(17.3%)脾撕裂分级≥4级。多因素分析确定入院时收缩压(比值比1.04)和腹部外区域受伤少于三个(比值比8.03)是非手术治疗成功的预测因素,而输血需求是脾切除术的有力预测因素(比值比66.67)。
入院时收缩压和有限的腹部外损伤可用于识别钝性脾外伤患者中不需要行脾切除术且可在重症监护病房外安全监测的患者。