Simmons Jon D, Haraway A Neal, Schmieg Robert E, Duchesne Juan D
Division of Trauma & Surgical Critical Care, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N State Street, Jackson, MS 39216, USA.
J Miss State Med Assoc. 2010 May;51(5):131-3.
While non-operative management of renal trauma in selected patients is now an accepted management option, predictors of failure of this treatment strategy are still unclear.
Five-year retrospective study of all patients with blunt renal injuries managed non-operatively at a Level I Trauma Center. Abstracted data included patient demographics, initial vital signs, base deficit, associated injuries, use of blood transfusion, management, and outcomes. Patients with successful non-operative management (S-NOM) and failure of non-operative management (F-NOM) were compared with two-tailed Student's t test, Fisher's exact test, or chi-square analysis as appropriate.
Over five years, 271 patients out of 12,252 trauma cases (2.2%) had blunt renal injury; 239 (88%) were initially managed non-operatively, and ten (4.1%) of these patients later requiring operation or intervention. No differences in age, sex, initial vitals, or GCS were found between S-NOM and F-NOM. The F-NOM patients were more seriously injured than the S-NOM patients (ISS 31 vs. 21, p < 0.001); had worse acidosis (ABG base deficit of-9.1 vs. -4.5, p < 0.001); required more blood products (12 units PRBC vs. 2.6 units PRBC, p < 0.001); and had significantly longer hospital lengths of stay (37 days vs. 12 days, p < 0.001). Angiography was used more frequently in the F-NOM patients (40% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.02). In the F-NOM only 3 (30%) required direct kidney intervention: 1 nephrectomy, 1 open urinoma drainage and 1 open nephrostomy tube placement. All of these patients had grade V renal injuries. The rest of the F-NOM patients had operative interventions not directly related to their renal injuries: 1 splenectomy and 6 missed bowel injuries.
Non-operative management of blunt renal injuries is successful in most cases. Patients with a high base deficit, ongoing transfusion requirements, and greater Injury Severity Scores have a higher likelihood of requiring operation, but these procedures most often are to address non-renal abdominal injuries. High-grade blunt renal injuries that are hemodynamically stable can be treated expectantly on an individual basis with close follow-up. Any patient with hemodynamic instability, renal pedicle injury, renal artery thrombosis, or urinary extravasation will likely require operative intervention.
虽然对部分患者采用非手术治疗肾外伤目前已成为一种可接受的治疗选择,但该治疗策略失败的预测因素仍不明确。
对在一级创伤中心接受非手术治疗的所有钝性肾损伤患者进行为期五年的回顾性研究。提取的数据包括患者人口统计学资料、初始生命体征、碱缺失、合并伤、输血情况、治疗方法及结果。对非手术治疗成功(S-NOM)和非手术治疗失败(F-NOM)的患者,根据情况采用双尾学生t检验、Fisher精确检验或卡方分析进行比较。
五年间,12252例创伤病例中有271例(2.2%)发生钝性肾损伤;其中239例(88%)最初采用非手术治疗,其中10例(4.1%)后来需要手术或干预。S-NOM组和F-NOM组在年龄、性别、初始生命体征或格拉斯哥昏迷评分方面未发现差异。F-NOM组患者比S-NOM组患者受伤更严重(损伤严重度评分分别为31分和21分,p<0.001);酸中毒更严重(动脉血气碱缺失为-9.1和-4.5,p<0.001);需要更多血液制品(12单位浓缩红细胞与2.6单位浓缩红细胞,p<0.001);住院时间显著更长(37天与12天,p<0.001)。F-NOM组患者更频繁地使用血管造影(40%比8.7%,p<0.02)。在F-NOM组中,仅3例(30%)需要直接对肾脏进行干预:1例肾切除术、1例开放性尿囊肿引流术和例1开放性肾造瘘管置入术。所有这些患者均为V级肾损伤。其余F-NOM组患者接受的手术干预与肾损伤无直接关系:1例脾切除术和6例漏诊的肠损伤。
大多数情况下,钝性肾损伤的非手术治疗是成功的。碱缺失高、持续需要输血以及损伤严重度评分较高的患者更有可能需要手术,但这些手术大多是为了处理腹部非肾性损伤。血流动力学稳定的高级别钝性肾损伤可在密切随访下个体化地进行保守治疗。任何有血流动力学不稳定、肾蒂损伤、肾动脉血栓形成或尿外渗的患者可能都需要手术干预。